Sitting of 6 June 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [ Lords]
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

    PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Health Boards
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his criteria for appointments to health boards in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind):Individuals are appointed on the basis of the contribution that they can make to the duties and responsibilities of the health boards.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the cuts and panic closures affecting hospitals in Lothian region made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Tory-appointed health board are an indictment of his system of appointment? Will he come with me to Longmore hospital in Edinburgh, where an excellent breast screening clinic and facilities for geriatric patients are threatened by a panic closure in eight weeks rather than in eight years? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that Lothian health board will receive proper funding—or will he go?
    Mr. Rifkind: I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to ensure that the health board's recommendations are considered on the basis of their implications for health care in the region. The hon. Gentleman should not suggest that the problem has been caused by underfunding. As he knows perfectly well, all Scottish health boards are funded in exactly the same way. The fact that Lothian finds itself to be seriously overspending is clearly a result of its own internal financial management—as the report now published by Peat, Marwick Mitchell clearly demonstrates.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that if health board appointments become more business oriented, as is presaged in the White Paper, he will pay particular attention to the successor bodies to the health
    614
    councils, to ensure that they are properly funded and properly accountable, so that effective patient and consumer consultation boards can be established within the Health Service?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. We shall certainly want to ensure that the boards offer the widest breadth of experience, consistent only with the important criterion of avoiding any conflict of interest between those who serve on health boards and those who have financial associations with the provision of health care.
    Mr. Marlow: If Scottish health boards were to be financed and paid for by a Scottish Parliament or Assembly that raised taxes in Scotland, as opposed to being funded by the general Exchequer, what would be the increase in the taxes due from Scottish people?
    Mr. Rifkind: If there were to be a Scottish Assembly and it had to fund Scottish health provision entirely from Scottish resources, there is no doubt that that would lead to a substantial increase in the amount of income tax paid by people in Scotland. Health expenditure in Scotland is about 25 per cent. higher per capita than that south of the border.
    Mr. Galbraith: Surely ultimate responsibility for the current shambles in Lothian health board rests directly with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Is not the crisis due to the sheer and utter incompetence of the board members—all of whom were directly appointed by the Secretary of State, and half of whom have either direct or indirect connections with the Conservative party? Is not it the case that unless increased funding is made available to Lothian health board, the crisis will be resolved only by the Secretary of State reneging on his promises, closing hospitals and introducing measures that will directly affect patient care?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government have already been helpful with regard to the problems of Lothian health board by saying that it will not be required to pay for last year's overspend in the current year, but it is crucial that the health board, like all other health boards in Scotland, should gain control over its expenditure and resources. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if he were speaking from this Dispatch Box, he would be the first to insist that all health boards in Scotland commit themselves to no more expenditure than the resources provided to them. If Lothian is the only health board in Scotland to have found itself in this difficulty, clearly that is a result of financial mismanagement within the health board.

    Scottish Homes
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of Scottish Homes; and if he discussed the current levels of capital spending on housing by the agency in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. and learned Friend and I regularly meet Sir James Mellon, chairman of Scottish Homes. Our discussions cover all aspects of Scottish Homes' functions and responsibilities.
    Mr. McAllion: The Minister promised the tenants of Scottish Homes that there would be no element of

    615
    compulsion in moving them into other types of tenure. Does he now accept that the latest investment priorities declared by Scottish Homes, stating that it is its intention to invest in every other type of tenure before investing in its own stock and tenants, are tantamount to blackmail—trying to force them into other types of tenure? Does not that mean that effectively the Minister has reneged on his promise to tenants of Scottish Homes; is not he ashamed of himself; and should not he reverse those investment priorities or tender his own resignation?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect on that subject. Funding for Scottish Homes' budget this year is some £356·5 million. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is primarily concerned with the project in, Fintry, which was delayed because of apprehensions expressed by some of his constituents. I believe that the estate-based strategy is being worked out and is likely to go ahead. Specific projects have begun or will begin shortly and other projects are under consideration as part of the continuing process of developing plans for the area. I shall draw the point that the hon. Gentleman has made to the attention of the chairman of Scottish Homes, but I stress to him that our commitment to upgrading Scottish Homes' stock remains as strong as ever.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of Scottish Homes, will he discuss with him the importance of its work in the regeneration of Barrhead in my constituency? Is he aware that following the welcome announcement on industrial improvement areas by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Renfrew district council, in co-operation with other public sector agencies and the private sector, is preparing imaginative but realistic plans for the future of Barrhead? In encouraging Scottish Homes to clear the path and to implement plans, will my hon. Friend also take the opportunity to point out to Opposition Members that the greatest threat to the improvement of the quality of housing in Scotland would be a roof tax?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with what my hon. Friend says about a roof tax, because it would swallow up a large part of the income of people who have bought their council house. Scottish Homes is now studying a consultancy report that considers the future of Barrhead. Housing is one aspect of the regeneration proposals. Scottish Homes will need to judge how best its involvement in this important project can complement other economic objectives of the Scottish Development Agency, the region and the district.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is not it a disgrace that the Government have conned people into buying so-called homes when the Minister and Scottish Homes know that in my area those properties were largely slums? A court case is being heard at the moment, and probably the Minister will argue that he cannot comment on that. Nevertheless, we still have tenants who want repairs to their homes, which they are not getting because Scottish Homes is hiding behind the law, the capitalist system and this Government. What has the Minister got to say to people in Leith who deserve support, repairs and justice? Will he give them that, because they need it?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has raised that matter with me before, on behalf of his
    616
    constituents. Tenants have applied for improvement grants to the district council, but they are some way down the queue of priorities. The pre-1984 backlog of improvement grants is being worked off quickly. The matter is a responsibility of the district council, but it does not have sufficient priority at present.
    Mr. Brown: What is the Minister doing about the plight of tenants, as well as people who foolishly bought their slum houses?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to tenants of Scottish Homes, I shall of course draw the matter to the attention of the chairman. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear which streets he is talking about.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Brief questions lead to briefer answers and more hon. Members are then called.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on measures to protect freedom of speech in institutions of Scottish higher education.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): Following our earlier undertaking to consider the position in Scotland, we have decided to consult interested parties on arrangements for safeguarding freedom of speech in universities and colleges in Scotland, in the light of which we shall consider whether any action is necessary.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend recall the promise that was made on 20 June 1989 at column 268 in answer to a debate that I initiated on freedom of speech in Scottish universities and polytechnics—that the review would take place in six to nine months? As a year has now gone by, when can we expect the results of that review?
    Mr. Lang: I recall the debate and the undertaking that was given, which was to consider the position in Scotland in the light of the review of the legislation, in particular section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 as it affects England and Wales. That review is still under way. We shall obviously wish to take account of the outcome of that review when considering the position in Scotland. However, I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the commitment that I have just given.
    Mr. Watson: What advice does the Minister expect to give to regional councils that have been led to understand, although they have not yet been informed, that the technical and vocational education initiative is to be slashed by 50 per cent. in the coming year? What involvement did the Scottish Office have in the discussions and what advice does the Minister of State intend to give to regional councils whose preparations are well advanced for the training of young people in the coming academic year?
    Mr. Lang: Some rephasing of the forward extension of TVEI is taking place. I welcome the £1·8 million that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has announced for the extension of TVEI. However, that has nothing whatever to do with freedom of

    617
    speech, which is the subject of this question. I wish that the Opposition would spend more time on upholding freedom of speech rather than abusing it.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that this is a serious matter and that I regret the fact that there appears to have been a shift in the Government's position? He will remember that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), made it clear on 7 June 1989 that
    "there was little evidence in Scotland of the problems that prompted the legislation south of the border."—[Official Report, 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 210.]
    and led to the imposition of section 43 in England. I recognise that recently there was one deplorable incident at Glasgow university, but that was very much a case of rent-a-crowd. Does the Minister accept that if the law were to be changed on the basis of such a demonstration, it would delight those who are responsible for trouble, but it would be a sad day indeed for university freedoms in Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: It is because the situation in Scotland was different that we did not follow our English colleagues down the road of section 43. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to fulfil our commitment to reconsider the matter and therefore to hold consultations. I hope that he will also support Conservative Members when we say that freedom of speech is vital. If, as Disraeli said, a university should be a place of light, liberty and learning, it can be none of those things unless freedom of speech is upheld.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who seek to silence those with whom they disagree demonstrate their own unsuitability for higher education? Does he further agree that university authorities ought to adopt a more robust attitude toward those who behave in such a disruptive way?
    Mr. Lang: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am glad that a number of universities are looking at their codes of practice and their codes of discipline to ensure that freedom of speech is upheld in our universities.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received seeking changes in the poll tax legislation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: I regularly receive representations about different aspects of the community charge.
    Mr. Canavan: Is not the Secretary of State ashamed of the fact that he offered the people of Scotland as poll tax guinea pigs, that there was not a whimper of protest from Tory Members of Parliament during the first year of the Scottish poll tax, but that when the poll tax hit England and Wales it met with a storm of protest and the Prime Minister was forced to think again? If the Secretary of State is to avoid the accusation of being a silent stooge in the Cabinet, will he speak up and tell the Prime Minister that a few pussy-footed amendments will not satisfy the people of Scotland who are demanding the abolition of this evil tax?
    Mr. Rifkind: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the poll tax applies throughout the United Kingdom——
    Mr. John D. Taylor: No, not throughout the United Kingdom; only Great Britain.
    Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to correct me with regard to Northern Ireland. The poll tax applies throughout Great Britain, unlike Labour's roof tax. We have yet to see whether the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who feels so strongly about these matters, wishes to impose on Scotland alone a roof tax, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (M r. Galloway) has attacked and which has been attacked by the Scottish Labour party. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he certainly would not wish to impose it south of the border. The Labour party needs to address itself to that.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that it is better to address particular anomalies that emerge in relation to the tax rather than necessarily the tax itself? Does he recognise that there are several anomalies affecting merchant seamen, those who spend a considerable part of the year overseas and some holiday homes, and that individual community charge payers have had to take matters to the courts for a decision? That course of action is not open to every individual. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore make sure that the legislation is amended appropriately to deal with those specific anomalies?
    Mr. Rifkind: We shall naturally look sympathetically at any constructive suggestions. There have already been important changes to the standard charge, which meet some of the points raised by my right hon. Friend'. However, most of the examples to which he referred involve classification, when the community charge registration officer in one part of the country may have acted in a different way from the community charge registration officer in another area. In precisely those circumstances an appeal to the courts is a way of ensuring uniformity and fairness of treatment throughout the country.

    Jobs, Glasgow
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special measures he intends taking to create jobs in the east end of Glasgow.
    Mr. Lang: Jobs are created by market forces, not by Governments. However, the Government continue to support a number of initiatives in the east end of Glasgow, including the provision of business advice and training, with the aim of stimulating and protecting employment in the area.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister totally ignorant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—of the fact that four of the seven constituencies with the highest unemployment in Scotland cover the east end of Glasgow? Does not he realise that the problem cannot be solved without special Government assistance? Just when will he do something about it? His reply is disgracefully inadequate. We are sick and tired of promises, press releases and cosmetic exercises. Just when will the Minister and his colleagues in Government realise that the people of Scotland and of Glasgow want the same job opportunities as people in London and the south of England? Can he tell the House when that day will come?
    Mr. Lang: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman, if not ignorant, is at least blind to the success of Government policies in Glasgow as elsewhere. In the past three years unemployment in Glasgow has fallen by no less than 29,000. In the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, unemployment stood at 7,000 in January 1987, but is now down to 4,500. He also should know that the Government are giving considerable support through the SDA to the East End Executive and that through the SDA there have been a number of projects to the value of £6 million in Shettleston. In those and other ways the Government are helping to assist the development of enterprise and employment in the east end of Glasgow.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend give a warm welcome to the statement made by the chief Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), when he said on Radio 4 on 28 May that Scotland does very well out of central Government funding and remains substantially funded from England? While it may be a little premature for the hon. Member for Garscadden to start talking as if he were a Minister, is not his change of heart very welcome?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is probably right. It is true that certain parts of Scotland get special help from the Government, as do certain parts of England, including the north-east and the north-west. That help is given because it is needed to generate employment and enterprise in areas of severe dereliction and difficulty. It is evidence of the success of Government policies in Glasgow that unemployment there has fallen by 29,000 over the past three years.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will know that in my constituency, in the Dennistoun area of the east end of Glasgow, more than 550 jobs in the tobacco industry have to go. Does he agree that it is a sad day when any industry that has increased its productivity and has good industrial relations and whose workers have worked there for generations finds that when Lord Hanson takes over a company, he strips the assets and closes factories? Surely the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and industry should do something about those asset-stripping companies.
    Mr. Lang: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on the loss of some 530 jobs in his constituency because of the closure. However, that loss will take place over the next two years and Hanson has given undertakings on assistance with counselling, job searches and training activities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that those decisions must be taken on commercial grounds and that industry must remain competitive, or more jobs will be lost. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that, by taking a commercial and competitive approach to the economy, the Government's efforts have resulted in a fall in unemployment in his constituency of about 3,000 over the past three years.

    Helicopter Ambulance Service
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what criteria the decision was taken that a helicopter ambulance service is to be fully funded by the National Health Service in Scotland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): A commercially sponsored trial in the highlands shows that a helicopter ambulance service represented value for money and improved the service greatly. The service is continuing on the basis that it will not add to the costs to the National Health Service overall.
    Mr. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the decision to fund the helicopter service in Scotland in full from Government sources is not begrudged in Cornwall, it caused dismay, consternation and puzzlement? The NHS has refused to make any contribution to the first helicopter ambulance service, which was provided in Cornwall. Did any special circumstances apply to the decision to fund in full the operating costs of the service in Scotland? Does my hon. Friend accept that the experience in Cornwall with that first helicopter ambulance service shows that the service is viable and valuable? Should not the same criteria therefore apply?
    Mr. Forsyth: The helicopter ambulance service in Cornwall does a splendid job and has been commercially sponsored and supported by the community. Following the pilot scheme in Scotland, which was commercially sponsored, it became clear that the service represented value for money and that it would improve the quality of patient care. For those reasons, and within the existing resources available to the ambulance service, it was decided to take on the helicopter ambulance service for the highlands. The decision was based on the interests of patient care. Any expansion of that service may well involve sponsorship as it applied in Cornwall, but because that is not my responsibility, I cannot give my hon. Friend any detail on aspects relating to the project in Cornwall.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the proposal to cut hospital services in East Lothian by a crippling 22 per cent., including the closure of the casualty unit at Roodlands hospital in Haddington——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the helicopter ambulance service.
    Mr. Home Robertson: My question will be about that. That proposal will give rise to serious difficulties in transporting about 600 casualty patients a month from East Lothian to the accident emergency unit at Edinburgh royal infirmary. Does the Minister believe that the existing ambulance service can cope with that, or is he thinking of helicopters?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at Scottish Question Time he has cheered when the Government's policy on competitive tendering has been attacked. He will be aware also that the revenues that have been saved in the Scottish ambulance service as a result of the pilot scheme on competitive tendering in my constituency are almost sufficient, over the three-year period, to meet the costs of the helicopter ambulance service.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that Lothian health board's proposals, which involve hospitals in his constituency, are out at consultation at present, and they will come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for consideration in due course.

    Roads
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many bypasses in Scotland are currently under construction; and how many further ones are planned.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Development Department has nine trunk road bypasses currently under construction, with a further 23 currently programmed. Bypasses on non-trunk roads in Scotland are of course a matter for the regional councils as roads authorities.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that the £1·6 billion of potential and actual spending on Scottish roads and bypasses has benefited the motoring public and has cut my regular journey to Aberdeen by about an hour and a half as a result of the improvements to the A94? Does he also agree that that spending has improved the competitiveness of Scottish companies and, if that is not enough, has contributed towards the attraction of £2·6 billion of inward investment into Scotland since 1981?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Spending on roads is 15 per cent. in Scotland higher than in England, where there has also been a substantial increase in resources. This year we are spending £205 million of capital and current expenditure which we believe is extremely important for jobs. My hon. Friend referred to Aberdeen; the upgrading of the road between Inverness and Aberdeen is the joint priority in Scotland along with the M74. We published recently a progress report about the bypasses that we hope will be brought to fruition before long in many parts of Scotland which will be important for jobs and will benefit the environment.
    Mr. Eadie: Although the Minister may give us a roll-call of expenditure on bypasses, does he recall that in my constituency there is a serious problem in Dalkeith with the A68? Will the Minister consider that problem? Traffic in Dalkeith is a disgrace, and we badly need the A68 bypass.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Dalkeith bypass will go ahead as quickly as possible and we hope that it will greatly benefit the hon. Gentleman's constituents. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the A7 will be upgraded to dual carriageway status later in the 1990s and we hope that that will also be of substantial benefit. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of particular problems on the A68 with accident blackspots, I should be grateful if he would let me know so that we can set in hand accident remedial schemes straight away.
    Sir Hector Monro: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the expenditure on the A75 between Gretna and Stranraer, including the bypasses at Annan, Castle Douglas, Gatehouse and Glenluce? There are many more to come including one for Dumfries. Is not that exceptionally wise expenditure which will benefit industry, agriculture and tourism and is not it something that the Government should continue with all possible haste?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I assure my hon. Friend that the progress on the M74 is such that it may be the fastest motorway to be built in Britain to date. We certainly intend to go ahead as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Wilson: The Minister will already know of the concern in my constituency about the delays to the Ardrossan-Saltcoats-Stevenston bypass and perhaps he can say something about its prospects. Does he agree that there is a danger of defeating the purpose of bypasses if they act as magnets for developments round them, particularly in green belts?
    On a subject that is closely related, does the Minister agree that the fate of football clubs should not be decided by property developers behind closed doors without regard to the interests and wishes of the people who support those clubs and attach a great deal of importance to them?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is not that a wee bit wide of roads?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman was bypassing the question. However, he made a serious point about the Ardrossan-Saltcoats bypass. About 23 bypasses are planned to start in Scotland and we will take the hon. Gentleman's point into account. Nine bypasses are under construction now and considerably more are likely to go ahead by 1991, including one at Bennane Hill on the A77. I must leave the Hearts bypass to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport to answer another day.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister recognise that the people of Northern Ireland, living just 20 miles or so from the coast of Scotland, regard the bypasses and roads in the west of Scotland as their lifeline into the rest of the United Kingdom and to Europe? In future, will he take that into account, consult the Northern Ireland Office and seek its support and co-operation for the improvement of the road system in any applications made to Brussels for European Economic Community support?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly contact my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to make them aware of the right hon. Gentleman's point. The commitment to upgrade the A75, which is a Eurolink with Northern Ireland, is moving steadily forwards fulfilment.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: In contradiction to the Opposition, will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House how grateful Perth is for its southern bypass so that St. Johnstone football club can have the most modern football ground in Scotland with the best facilities in a greenpeace site—[interruption.]—where people can enjoy the football?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We believe that all road projects should be environmentally friendly, and we shall do everything within our power to ensure that that happens.

    Steel Industry
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to meet trade union representatives from the Scottish steel industry to discuss investment in the Scottish steel industry.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met representatives of the steel trade unions in Scotland recently.
    Dr. Reid: I am glad that the Secretary of State met representatives of the work force at Dalzell and Ravenscraig because their jobs are on the line and they

    623
    know better than any hon. Member the problems of the steel industry. Is the Secretary of State aware of growing suspicion among workers' representatives and others that the closure of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig is a result of the manipulation of the monopoly position of British Steel? What will he do to investigate that? I am aware that he welcomed the study of the market by Motherwell district council, but that will not be sufficient. What independent investigation has the Scottish Office initiated, or does it intend to initiate, into the competitive—or otherwise—practices of British Steel now and in the future?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have said that the first priority is to try to obtain greater information—indeed, some information—from British Steel on the reasoning and thinking behind its announcement. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the attitude of the work force. When I wrote to Sir Robert Scholey last week seeking further information of the kind that I have indicated, I also suggested to him that he might find it helpful to meet representatives of the work force at Ravenscraig not only to explain to them the thinking behind his proposals but to hear their constructive suggestions on how they can continue to make a viable contribution to the well-being of British Steel as a whole through the Ravenscraig works.
    Mr. Siliars: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most important meetings this year on investment in the future of the Scottish steel industry will be the annual general meeting of British Steel in July? Will he confirm that one of the privileges of the golden share held by the Government is that a Crown Minister has the right to attend and address the shareholders' meeting? Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity in July to exercise that right and address the board and the shareholders on the unfairness of the investment by British Steel since 1983 and try to elicit from the meeting the information that has so far been denied to us?
    Mr. Rifkind: However sincere the hon. Gentleman's intention might be in making that proposition, it is a rather foolish suggestion. He knows as well as I do that the golden share is relevant only to any proposal by an outside interest to acquire more than 15 per cent. in the shareholding of British Steel. That is made quite clear by the prospectus, and the hon. Gentleman knows it as well as I do.
    Mr. Holt: May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that we are talking about the British steel industry and that there will be considerable resentment among my constituents and others on Teesside if he seeks in any way unduly to influence British Steel in making its commercial decisions simply because of the volume of voices from the parliamentary Labour party?
    Mr. Rifkind: Although I understand my hon. Friend's views, I remind him that the Government amendment, which the House approved, called upon British Steel to explain and defend its decision with regard to its proposals for the hot strip mill, and that is exactly what we intend to do.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is not encouraging to hear a Minister of the Crown say that he is hoping to get some information from British Steel? Is the Secretary of State receiving information from the
    624
    company about the arguments, the facts and the figures? Has Sir Robert Scholey stated that he will discuss his case openly and frankly with the work force and with the Government? What steps does the Secretary of State propose to take if that co-operation is not forthcoming? If the information does come forward, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look seriously at the need to challenge and test the assumptions behind that disastrous decision, perhaps with the help of independent advice?
    Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, I understand the hon. Gentleman's need to make those remarks. However, I remind him that the Labour party's policy on this matter is, in practically all respects, exactly the same as the Government's. The Labour party has clearly ruled out the renationalisation of British Steel. It therefore follows that Labour is saying exactly the same as everyone else—that this is ultimately a decision for British Steel. If my assumption about Labour's policy towards the renationalisation of the steel industry is incorrect, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will wish to make that clear.

    Water Charges
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the percentage increases in Scotland on the community water charge between 1989–90 and 1990–91.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The average personal community water charge has risen by less than 9 per cent.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister must know that as the community water charge is not rebatable, the figure that he has announced amounts to quite an additional burden, especially on people with low incomes. As it is estimated that £1·25 billion will be required to improve water quality to meet the regulations, the community water charge looks set to become a crippling burden on families unless the Government do more to help local authorities. What proposals do the Government have to match the capital debt write-off for and the dowry given to the water companies in England and Wales before privatisation? Will the Government give the same help to Scottish local authorities? If they do not, Scottish families, businesses and communities look set to be crippled by high water charges throughout the 1990s.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The cash injections into eight of the 10 water authorities in England and Wales were part of the capital restructuring before privatisation which the hon. Gentleman knows is not happening in Scotland. The Scottish Office is considering the implications for Scotland. However, I stress that water charges are very much lower in Scotland than they are south of the border. The average household in Scotland pays just over £41 per year for water, whereas in England the figure is £64. Similarly, much more is paid per head south of the border for sewerage than is paid in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are special circumstances in Shetland because of the negotiations over the Sullom Voe terminal, but, as Shetland has the lowest community charge in Scotland and Orkney the second lowest, the whole picture must be taken into account.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind not only the domestic water charge payer, but the business water charge payer in areas such as Grampian, which last

    625
    year had a dramatic increase in its water charges? When we see debts being written off for the English water boards, there is obviously anxiety among high water users, such as the food-processing and paper-making industries, that they cannot compete on level terms with similar industries south of the border because of the water charges that they must pay.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is a general desire for harmonisation. However, I stress that the non-domestic water rate for premises that are not connected to a metered water supply is levied in Scotland according to a proportion of the net annual value. That proportion is determined by the water authority and ranges from 100 per cent. to 12·5 per cent., depending on the type of premises. In general, we are seeking harmonisation.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that there is a feeling that the charges have been held low in anticipation of the regional elections? Does he further accept that one of the anomalies of this matter, as with the poll tax, is that the charges are not income related? If the Secretary of State is looking to remove anomalies, what proposals is he putting before the Cabinet to make the poll tax and the water charge tax income related?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must stress to the hon. Gentleman again that water charges in Scotland are much lower than those south of the border. I consider that that is a satisfactory position. There are many more difficulties with business rate payers who have to pay more in Scotland. We are trying to harmonise as quickly as practicable.
    Income is taken into account in the rebate system, and a considerable number of people are exempt from water charges. Full-time students are entitled to an 80 per cent. rebate. People are exempt from personal community water charges if their premises do not receive a public water supply. Any person listed in the schedule to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 who is exempt from the personal community charge is also exempt from the community water charge. That includes the severely mentally impaired and long-term and residential care home patients.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the water charge is use related and that if we could relate any form of local authority expenditure to use, we would not need a standard licence fee for the use of local authority services, which is the equity that the community charge represents?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank that I can explain to my hon. and learned Friend that water charges depend on a variety of factors such as the cost of treating and supplying the water, the amount of pumping facilities, the level of capital debt and the method of apportionment between classes of consumer. All those matters can vary among local authorities in Scotland and in fact do.

    Glasgow-East Kilbride Railway
    Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the submission from the East Kilbride development corporation and ScotRail to build a new railway station in East Kilbride and to extend the Glasgow-East Kilbride railway; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lang: The submission from East Kilbride development corporation and ScotRail on the building of a new railway station in East Kilbride has been received and is being considered. I expect to announce a decision soon.
    Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware that the long delay in reaching a decision on this matter is causing serious anxiety and uncertainty to householders who will lose their homes if the development goes ahead? Will he explain why it has taken so long to reach a decision on what is, after all, a relatively straightforward matter of extending a railway line a few hundred yards and building a modern up-to-date railway station to service the needs of commuters to and from East Kilbride? Will he give me an assurance that the answer that he has just given means that we shall receive a decision from the Minister in a matter of weeks, not of long, weary months?
    Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that "soon" means soon. It is important that such decisions are carefully considered in the normal way. That includes an economic appraisal. That matter is in hand and I hope to set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest in early course.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm the importance of the Glasgow-East Kilbride line to the people of Eastwood? Will he congratulate Strathclyde region on putting new rolling stock on the Glasgow-East Kilbride line and the Glasgow-Barrhead line? On the point about reopening stations raised by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), is not it encouraging that several new railway stations are being opened in the Greater Glasgow area—one example being Dumbreck, which is only five minutes from where I live?
    Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend. As a result of a grant from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State of about £30 million two years ago, there has been a substantial expansion and improvement in the rolling stock in Strathclyde. Last year about five stations were opened or reopened. This year 10 stations are scheduled to be reopened in the Strathclyde area, including Dumbreck, to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Housing
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he intends to take with respect to solving Scotland's housing problem.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he intends to take with respect to solving Scotland's housing problem.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend and I are developing a rural housing strategy for Scotland through Scottish Homes and we have asked Scottish Homes to give priority to the problem of homelessness.
    Mr. Salmond: As 100,000 Scots are now on council house waiting lists and homelessness is even higher in Scotland than it is in England and Wales, when will an emergency programme for Scottish housing be set up to match the necessary programme for homelessness in London and the south-east of England? The south of England has 30 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom and obtains 50 per cent. of mortgage tax relief

    627
    —an additional subsidy to the subsidy junkies of the south-east of £1,000 million. When will that spending be matched by investment in public sector housing in Scotland and elsewhere?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have increased the net capital allocations at the final stage by about £40 million above the previous year. A huge number of houses—more than 205,000—has been built in the past 10 years. The public sector built almost 60,000. We believe that the housing associations have an important role in catering for people with special needs and that the district councils are taking their statutory responsibilities seriously. Although each year there may be 25,000 or more applications from homeless people, the district councils are finding them places to stay.
    Mr. Salmond: Rubbish.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The district councils are operating extremely effectively. We believe that Scottish Homes should give priority to assisting them in that purpose.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: How can the Minister reconcile his answers at parliamentary questions in October last year, when he made it clear that the Scottish Development Department did not keep estimates of homelessness or overcrowding in Scotland, with a letter circulated in May this year to all Scottish Members in which he attacked Shelter, an organisation which does an effective job combating homelessness, for keeping such records? Will he stop talking about net capital allocations and instead talk about gross capital allocations? Last year the budget in Scotland was slashed by £51 million and in areas such as Moray that meant a reduction of 15 per cent. When will he take action to reduce and eradicate this social injustice?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As for gross capital allocations, if district councils, especially in cities, processed right-to-buy applications more speedily, there would be millions of pounds extra to spend on Government housing this year. A few days ago I visited the hon. Lady's district council and saw the housing there. It is making good progress with the projects before it. The rural housing strategy, on which we hope to reach a decision on the way forward certainly by the autumn, will be of considerable assistance in helping to bring back into use many of the 130,000 empty houses in Scotland. I hope that that will have relevance in many rural areas, including that of the hon. Lady.
    Mrs. Fyfe: How many council houses in Scotland are unfit to live in because of dampness and other problems? When does the Minister expect every family in Scotland to have a house fit to live in at the current rate of financial contributions from the Government?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We think that it is a serious problem that about 48,000 houses have rising damp and condensation, but it is for the district councils concerned, which know their stock best, to choose the priorities for dealing with these matters. Many are completing local house condition surveys, which we welcome.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem in Scotland is that too much housing is in the public sector? Is he aware that Scotland has a lower
    628
    percentage of owner-occupation than Czechoslovakia? What are the Government doing to speed the privatisation of the housing stock in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Approaching 200,000 public sector tenants have purchased their homes in Scotland and we have a rents-to-mortgages trial scheme. As the Prime Minister said, if that scheme proves itself, it will be extended.
    Mr. Maxton: If the Minister genuinely believes that local authorities are dealing with the problem of the 28,000 homeless people in Scotland, what is his answer to the leaders of the housing committees of Scotland's four largest housing authorities who yesterday claimed that there was a major housing crisis because the Government had cut £51 million in real terms of capital allocations? When will he recognise the housing crisis, shed his prejudices against council housing and give local authorities the money that they need to stop thousands of our fellow Scots suffering from poor housing conditions?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Cities such as Edinburgh and Dundee, and to a lesser extent Glasgow, are taking almost a year to process council house sales. If that period is reduced to seven and a half months, extra money will be available to those cities to spend on their public sector stock. It is necessary to bring back into use as many as possible of the 128,000 to 130,000 vacant houses in Scotland.

    Industrial Development
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to discuss industrial development in Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency on 24 March at a dinner for UK-Japan 2000, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State met him on 4 June.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Secretary of State examined the distribution throughout Scotland of inward investment projects during the past five years, and has he reached the same conclusion as have the people and council of Cumnock and Doon Valley—that Locate in Scotland seems entirely unaware of the substantial advantages for inward investment of locating in a district that has higher unemployment, as the Secretary of State knows well, than in any travel-to-work area in mainland Britain? Will he ensure that Locate in Scotland is aware of the advantages of locating inward investment in Cumnock and Doon Valley? Will he encourage Locate in Scotland to try to make companies from the overheated south-east of England that want to find alternative locations aware of the quality of life that they will find in Cumnock and Doon Valley?
    Mr. Rifkind: Naturally we are anxious that, wherever possible, inward investment should go to the areas with the most unemployment, but at the end of the day it is for the companies to decide their locations. If the Government were to seek to direct them, they would not come to Scotland in the first place. Ayrshire has been relatively fortunate for example, with the Caledonian paper factory

    629
    which, although located in Irvine, produces jobs throughout Ayrshire. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Scottish Development Agency, the regional economic development committee and the enterprise trusts have had substantial success in the past few years in bringing industry to Scotland? Will he say by how much unemployment has fallen in Scotland in each of the past three years?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Unemployment in Scotland has fallen in the past three years at a higher rate than at any other time in recorded history. It is interesting that Scottish unemployment is now below the level of that of many European Community countries.
    Mr. Hood: May I tell the Secretary of State about the real problem facing areas such as Cumnock and Clydesdale? The town of Larkhall in my constituency is next to the A74. It contains massive industrial sites, but has not been properly served by Locate in Scotland because it seems not to know of it, and it does not let anyone concerned with inward investment know about the area. We expect Locate in Scotland to address the problem, and to represent all communities instead of all parts of Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Locate in Scotland has no bias in favour of or against any area. As for the area about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, the improvement of the A74 to motorway status will make the area even more attractive to investment than it has been in the past.

    Employment Training
    Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the estimated total number of employment training entrants in 1990–91.
    Mr. Lang: Resources available for employment training in Scotland in 1990–91 have been based on an estimate of an average of 28,500 people in training at any one time. Over 55,000 entered employment training in 1989–90.
    Mr. McLeish: Why is Scotland suffering such savage cuts in its training budget? Will the Minister confirm that £30 million has been cut from the youth training budget for the next two years? Has he had time to assess the impact of yesterday's announcement of 400 redundancies by Astra Training Services Ltd? That will impact on Scottish skill centres.
    Mr. Lang: We do not need lectures from the Labour party on cutting training programmes. We are spending about six times as much in cash terms on training as did the Labour Government in their last year. We spend a higher proportion of our gross domestic product on training than do the United States, Germany or Japan. In the past four years, expenditure on training has risen by 60 per cent. at a time when unemployment has fallen by 50 per cent. Of course, it makes sense to adjust our training programmes and budgets to take account of falling unemployment and a reduced client group for those programmes. That is the right way to manage the programmes.
    Mr. Worthington: During the past few months, the Minister has been in the unfortunate position of having to announce cuts imposed by the Department of Employment on employment training, the technical and vocational education initiative, youth training and the European social fund. The Minister has claimed that next year the Scottish Office will be in control of training. Is that true? Next year, will we be able to control those factors from within Scotland, or will we continue to have Department of Employment cock-ups?
    Mr. Lang: Last year, the average number of people in employment training schemes was 26,000. For 1990–91 we are budgeting for an estimated 28,500, which is an increase in employment training. The training schemes are increasingly successful, to the embarrassment and discomfort of the Labour party, which has tried to undermine and oppose them.
    As to the control of training policies, the hon. Gentleman knows that by merging the Training Agency with the SDA to create Scottish Enterprise and devolving control of the policies in detail to the local enterprise companies, we shall achieve the kind of flexibility and diversity within the overall training programme on a United Kingdom basis that will lead to better training and better job opportunities throughout Scotland.

    National Health Service
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss the current circumstances of the National Health Service in Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I last met the BMA on 26 March 1990.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister recall that members of the BMA along with all the people of Cambuslang and Rutherglen rejected the plan by Greater Glasgow health board to scrap a new hospital and to turn over care of the elderly to Takare, a private company? Despite boasts that this was a good financial deal for the public, the health board is refusing to reveal details of the weekly costs of the beds that will be paid to Takare. Will the Minister instruct the health board to reveal the true cost to the public of privatising care of the elderly?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has the distinction of being one of the few Members of Parliament to come here to complain that a new facility for the elderly will be built in his constituency, faster than would otherwise have been the case, which will provide 180 beds at a lower cost to the Health Service. I hope that every one of his constituents is aware of his position because he is putting his own political dogma before the interests of patient care.

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 22 JUNE
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Lewis Stevens

  Mr. David Martin

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House I shall put together the four motions relating to European Community documents.
  Ordered,
  That European Community Document No. 10499/89, relating to production and labelling of organic food, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
  That European Community Document No. 9825/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 2nd May 1990, relating to game and rabbit meat, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
  That European Community Document No. 10438/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 12th
  632
  March 1990, relating to marketing standards for poultrymeat, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
  That European Community Documents Nos. 4780/90, relating to health rules for poultrymeat, 4596/90, relating to health rules for fresh meat, 4781/90, relating to health rules for meat products, 4863/90, relating to health rules for minced meat and certain other meat preparations, and 4782/90, relating to the conditions for granting derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of products of animal origin, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[ Mr. Fallon.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Planning and Building Regulations (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[ Mr. Fallon.]

Injurious Affection (Amendment)
3.33 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the time limits within which compensation may be claimed under the law of injurious affection.
I am concerned principally with those people in Kent, particularly in my constituency, who will be adversely affected by the channel tunnel rail link and various concomitant works. However, the Bill would also benefit people in other constituencies being immediately affected by motorways or other works of public transport construction.
The law as it stands means that compensation does not become payable until 12 months after the first date of use of whatever is in question. As things are progressing at the moment, it looks unlikely that the channel tunnel rail link will be up and running before the turn of the century.
Constituents of mine and those of my hon. Friends who are just outside the 240 m corridor will not have their properties compulsorily purchased, they will have all the uncertainty until construction is complete, they will suffer nuisance during construction and, when the first train runs, they will have to wait 12 months before they can prove nuisance. The Bill sets out to reduce that period so that people who are injuriously affected by various works of construction will be able to claim within three months rather than 12.
The present arrangements are set out in the Land Compensation Act 1973. When that Act was passed, there had been no major railway construction since the turn of the century. We need to look in detail at our planning and compensation laws to see whether they are adequate to deal with this new phenomenon of the first major railway construction for so many years. In particular, I am worried about those constituents who will not be affected by the much talked about new high-speed rail link but who will be affected by all the concomitant works for freight that are being carried out on other lines. Those people will not be able to get any compensation unless there is negligence in the course of construction.
While British Rail says that the loop lines at Headcorn and elsewhere are merely for intensification of the use of existing lines, those who are affected by them, no matter how closely, cannot claim compensation because the Land Compensation Act specifically excluded intensification of use as a ground for claiming compensation. However, I could show hon. Members the houses of constituents in which cracks are already quite obvious and where there is already subsidence and immense noise pollution.
I am aware that the Government take the matter seriously. They have shown that by the Department of Transport initiative in setting up a committee specifically
634
to look at noise nuisance. However, that committee's deliberations are likely to be long and I do not know whether ultimately they will help immediately those who will be affected by the various construction works.
If a nuisance can be proved within three months, it will not go away in the next nine months. Why is it necessary to wait 12 months if one can prove immediate nuisance? I do not understand that. There are major benefits in reducing the period to three months. First, there is the obvious effect on householders who are suffering uncertainty about the value of their property and about the nuisance. A three-month period would give a shorter time scale in which the Lands Tribunal could work and in which appeals could be made, and would therefore remove the complicating factors that can arise in 12 months.
For example, if a householder sells his property before the 12 months have elapsed, there are additional complications in adjusting the compensation. There would be benefit in the administration of the law, as well as benefit to those householders who are suffering. The complicated adjustment that is necessitated by many interim effects which can arise between three and 12 months, such as adjustments to the value of the property, inflation, market changes and other influencing factors, would also be subject to a shorter time scale, and that would make matters neater and tidier.
My prime concern is that my constituents and the constituents of the other sponsors of the Bill in Canterbury, Gravesend and Dartford are all suffering because of inadequate compensation laws. My Bill would reduce a further period of uncertainty for which there appears to be no good reason and which inflicts further mental suffering as well as suffering caused by physical nuisance.
These matters are causing more problems in Kent than are generally recognised. If my constituents must wait another five, six or seven years for construction to take place, only to be asked to sit back and suffer one year's blight of nuisance, noise, house damage and undervaluing of property, they are faced with a monstrous proposal. A simple change in the law would at least reduce that blight if it could not entirely eliminate it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Roger Sims and Mr. David Shaw.

Injurious Affection (Amendment)
  INJURIOUS AFFECTION (AMENDMENT)
  Miss Ann Widdecombe accordingly presented a Bill to reduce the time limits within which compensation may be claimed under the law of injurious affection: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

Points of Order
3.41 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You must be aware, Sir, of the great respect in which you are held in the House in defending the rights of individual Members and the rights of the House of Commons. Will you tell us whether you have made the views of the House known to the other place—the latter-day 1930s appeasers—on the War Crimes Bill? Have the Government made available any knowledge to you that an early statement will be made so that the Bill can be sent back to the other place and their Lordships sent packing in the interests of the democracy of this country?
Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask me whether I have let my views be known on that matter. He certainly heard the views of the Prime Minister yesterday. The matter is one for the Government, not for me.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has prompted a rash of points of order on an Opposition day. Points of order will take time out of the time for the debate.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have heard the views of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) on the powers of the other place, and there are Opposition Members who believe in abolishing the House of Lords. We are still battling to get that proposal into a policy review before the general election. Apart from all that, I think that there is a matter that you should clarify. Many Speakers go to the House of Lords when they have finished their stint here. I reckon that, on the basis of what was said yesterday about Members declaring their interests, you should tell us what your intentions are, Mr. Speaker, before you consider your response to the point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has given me a lead. That is precisely why I shall say nothing.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whatever your plans may or may not be—I hope that you will be in this place for quite a while yet—may I ask whether there will be some way in which the House will be able to express clearly the fact that, on a free vote, there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the War Crimes Bill, which has been entirely ignored by the other place? There has been much speculation in the press that there will be an opportunity for a debate, when the House can reaffirm its decision. Have you been notified, Mr. Speaker, whether such a debate will take place in the near future?
Mr. Speaker: I have not been notified. However, we have business questions tomorrow, and if the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to catch my eye, he may be able to put his question to the Leader of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in his place and I am sure that he has heard what has been said.

Opposition Day
[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.43 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
  That this House records its alarm that since Her Majesty's Government ended the provision of free eye examinations the number of eye tests has fallen by over two million; notes that Her Majesty's Government's policy of leaving charges for eye tests to be settled by the market has resulted in a typical charge of £12·00; concludes that charges are deterring many members of the public from seeking eye tests, thereby putting their sight and health at risk; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to restore a free preventive service for eye examinations.
  The Secretary of State will recall that his first reappearance at the Dispatch Box in his current role was to defend the abolition of the free eye test in a debate on a Lords amendment to the Health and Medicines Bill. In the patois of sketch writers, he made a speech which would normally be described as "robust". I remember that he was jolly cross with the rest of us for defending the Lords amendment.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman accused right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who disagreed with him of crying wolf. He said that the idea that people will be deterred from coming forward for an eye test because of a charge was
  "contrary to common sense as well as the evidence … We must ask how many people, if any, will be deterred from going to the optician by the prospect—and it is no more than a prospect—that many opticians will charge £10."—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 923.]
  I appreciate that the Secretary of State was asking a rhetorical question, and I apologise for the fact that the rhetorical pause that followed it has lasted 18 months. However, we can now answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. The answer to his question of how many people would be deterred from taking an eye test is 3 million. That is the number who have been deterred from undergoing an eye test as a result of the charge. The Secretary of State appears surprised. That figure has been available from quarterly surveys since charges were introduced.
  The figure of 3 million is one which we can quote with confidence because it has been prepared by Professor Hart, professor of statistics at Reading university, using two sources. The first was a survey by the Association of Optometrists, drawing on 400 branches, with data collected from those branches by the Economists Advisory Group. The second was a survey also based on data collected from 1,200 branches of multiples, with data collected by Touche Ross.
  I stress that both surveys had a very large base, and were based on work by independent agencies, not professional organisations. The conclusion reached in those surveys, and by Professor Hart, is that, in the year to April 1990, the number of eye tests performed totalled 8·9 million, compared with a figure in the year to April 1989 of 13·2 million—a drop of more than 4 million.

  637
  I want to be fair to the Secretary of State. The figures are so dramatic that I can afford to be fair to him. I concede that, in the year to April 1989, probably an extra 1 million people underwent eye tests in anticipation of the introduction of charges. In fact, the Minister of State made a precise estimate of their number. He provided a figure to the Select Committee suggesting that 1·4 million tests were performed in 1987–88 in anticipation of charges and resulted in an unduly high figure for those years. I think that the figure of 1·4 million is rather high, but I shall not quibble. I concede every single one of them. Even if that number is deducted from the fall in the number of tests last year over the previous year, one is still left with a dramatic decline in eye tests of 2·9 million—effectively, a 3 million drop in the number of people going for an eye test last year.
  One has to go back to 1981 to find a year in which the number of eye tests was that low. Effectively, the Government have wiped out a whole decade of advance in the eye service.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: The line of argument that the hon. Gentleman is now adopting seems rather different from that which he used in the debate on the Health and Medicines Bill on 1 November 1988, when he said:
  I predict, with confidence, that the Secretary of State will not save that sum, for two reasons … Eye hospitals will be swamped by references from general practitioners who will no longer be able to refer their patients to optometrists for free examinations."—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 933.]
  Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that has happened, and whether the difference in the two figures that he quoted is accounted for by that factor?
  Mr. Cook: If the eye hospitals had received 3 million additional referrals for free examinations, I assure the hon. Gentleman that he would have spotted the queues in the street. My point is that since charges were introduced 3 million people have not undergone eye tests who would otherwise have done so. That is perfectly consistent with the fact that the number of people going to eye hospitals who previously would not have done so is significantly up. That increase will be matched by the reduction in the number of referrals of people with secondary symptoms who would obviously have been referred there by optometrists had they seen that large a number.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): If the hon. Gentleman is going to rely on the surveys published so far, will he agree that he is relying heavily on surveys of opticians, who I have no doubt were trying to be helpful but who have a vested interest in the replies that they give? Is he also going to refer to the survey carried out by the Association of Optometrists using a MORI poll of the general public or to the Royal National Institute for the Blind survey of the public, which show that there is no apparent decrease in the number of tests carried out?
  Mr. Cook: The survey carried out by the Royal National Institute for the Blind gave an estimated 2·7 million reduction, which is substantial—I am sorry to have to tell the Secretary of State that I have seen it and it shows precisely that reduction. I can assure him that I will be referring to the survey carried out by MORI because I believe that it is a prime part of his case.
  I must pick up on the way that the Secretary of State has immediately sought to cast doubt on the figures that I
  638
  gave because they came from opticians. I repeat that the statistics I quoted were derived by a professor of statistics, who is putting his scientific reputation on the line, from data collected by the Economists Advisory Group and by Touche Ross, the chartered accountants. The Secretary of State is suggesting that all those are part of a conspiracy to distort the figures. Is he telling the House that every one of those 400 independent optometrists and 1,200 branches of the multiples is part of a conspiracy to practise a statistical lie—that they are all together in a conspiracy to co-ordinate the same statistical lie?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am pointing out that the figures that the hon. Gentleman has relied on, quite mistakenly, are all derived from independent opticians and multiple chains. Figures obtained from the general public—surveys of patients, including, contrary to what he has just asserted, questions asked by the Royal National Institute for the Blind—do not support his thesis.
  Mr. Cook: Perhaps my naivety and innocence made me conclude that the people most likely to be able to assist us on the numbers of people coming forward for eye tests are the opticians who carry out such tests. If the Secretary of State is really telling the House—if he is, it will be badly received outside—that that scientific profession is capable of practising a lie for financial gain, I have a simple solution to offer him. In the past year, the profession has offered time and again to agree on a system of independent monitoring with the Secretary of State in which they could both participate. However, the Secretary of State has resisted and rebuffed every one of those overtures. There can be only one conclusion—it is perfectly simple—which is that the Secretary of State does not want their help to monitor the drop because he does not want to know how big the drop is.
  Since the Secretary of State advises me to do so, I shall refer to the survey carried out by MORI on behalf of the Association of Optometrists. I assume that it is that survey, and the parallel survey which the Secretary of State has carried out, that have prompted the Government amendment to state that charges will not deter those who need sight tests from seeking them. I do not see where the "will" in the sentence comes from. It is not a question of what will happen in the future: as the Secretary of State knows, we have had a whole year of charges, and the evidence of deterrence is already there.
  I understand that the Secretary of State has carried out a survey of his own, similar to the one that the Association of Optometrists commissioned from MORI. I presume that it is those data that the Secretary of State will deploy in his speech—a speech which his junior Minister yesterday assured the House would blow me out of the water. That would be an exhilarating experience, which I look forward to with excitement. The Secretary of State will have to find much more than the market research survey to which he has just referred if he is to succeed in blowing me out of the water.
  Faced with the problem, the Government, typically, have opted for market research. Instead of going to the opticians for data, they have asked people in the street whether they can remember when they last had an eye test. The question that the Government have been asking is, "Have you had a sight test at an optician since Christmas?" The problem with that approach—to me, at least, it is a problem, although I suspect that the Secretary

  639
  of State sees it as a solution—is that it invites over-reporting. It is not just this year that the Association of Optometrists has carried out market research; it has carried out similar market research surveys in each of the last five years, which have resulted in an over-reporting of the number of eye tests by 15 to 25 per cent.
  Knowing that he would be asked this question, the Secretary of State commissioned an identical survey from MORI, which put to a sample 1,000 people exactly the question that the Secretary of State devised for his survey: "Have you had a sight test at an optician since Christmas?" The result of the survey, if the answers were correct and if all those who said that they had been to an optician since Christmas had done so, would have been that, in the last financial year, there were not 9 million eye tests but 16 million eye tests.
  The only problem that the profession would have had in the last financial year would have been to get all those coming in for an eye test to form orderly queues at the door. Such an approach merely tests popular perceptions; it does not test the reality of those who go to opticians for eye tests.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman says that a public survey will plainly lead to over-reporting. I am prepared to agree with him, as a matter of argument. He believes that in the past there has been over-reporting of between 15 and 25 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that a 15 to 25 per cent. allowance can be made and that there will still be no fall in the number of eye tests? The hon. Gentleman's proposition is based on the absurd argument that, so long as one surveys only opticians, one can show that there has been a drop, but every time one surveys the public, one finds that there has been no drop in the number of eye tests. I prefer the second approach.
  Mr. Cook: The House will have observed that the Secretary of State is backing himself into a position from which he is successfully protecting himself against any opportunity of obtaining the correct data. From the moment that he says that opticians cannot be included in the survey, he is precluded from finding out how many people are going to opticians.
  Let me try to impress upon the Secretary of State the invitation that opticians have been making to him for a year. If he does not trust them, he is casting a major slur on a scientific profession by saying that they are prepared, in conspiracy with Touche Ross, the Economists Advisory Group and Professor Peter Hart, professor of statistics at Reading, to conceal the figures and deceive the House. If that is what he is saying, I invite him to nominate any independent body that he and the Association of Optometrists can together instruct to collect the data. That invitation has been made to the Secretary of State each month for the past year. I ask him again whether he has the courage to accept the challenge.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There is absolutely nothing new to say in this tired old debate between the two sides, except to discuss these surveys. The hon. Gentleman says that we must go only to opticians for our information. He is unaware of any survey of the general public that shows any reduction at all in the number of eye tests. He has seen a survey of the general public which shows that there has been no reduction in demand, but he dismisses it by using
  640
  the absurd argument that people do not remember correctly when they last had an eye test. Does he not accept that it is sensible to have a survey of the general public, or is he prepared to say that the only source of information on which he will rely is people with a professional, vested interest in the results?
  Mr. Cook: Once again, the Secretary of State's most revealing comment was the last line—that because, as he perceives it, they have a vested interest, he is not prepared to believe what the opticians are saying to him. I find that a breathtaking slur which, by implication, would be applicable not just to optometrists, and could be used to rebut pretty well any medical research one cares to name, all of which is based on scientific research of people no doubt with a vested interest in promoting their own profession.
  Over the years, the accountancy profession has developed modest and sometimes quite sophisticated tools for accounting the books. The accountancy profession, can, from time to time, detect fraud, particularly when that fraud is practised on the ginormous scale that the Secretary of State has alleged. I put it to the Secretary of State that all those optometrists who have been charging for eye tests for the past year have accounts and have to make annual returns. Will the Secretary of State accept any independent audit of their books to find out what has happened to their accounts and the numbers treated in the past year, or will he say that the accountants also cannot be trusted because they have some vested interest? It is perfectly clear that the Secretary of State is determined on one point—he will not ask the optometrists how many they are treating, because he dare not do so.
  Dame Jill Knight: Is it not also true that, if the ophthalmic opticians and the medical practitioners are faking their books, that is a matter of fraud for the Inland Revenue?
  Mr. Cook: I wholly agree with the hon. Lady, who has first-hand knowledge on which to make that assertion. There is a way in which the Secretary of State could assist the hon. Lady and myself. He could repeat his allegations outside the cloak of privilege. Were he to go public and assert that those 400 optometrists who made returns were seeking to practise fraud on the public, on the Department and on the House, the courts might take a considerable interest in the matter.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have at no stage made any such allegation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, you have.") The hon. Gentleman has such a narrow statistical base for his case that every time I doubt it, he keeps trying to say that I am accusing people of fraud. Obviously, different practices fare to different extents. Some of the multiples have lost out rather badly to independents in the curious market of the past year. All I am saying, and the hon. Gentleman has not denied it, is that nobody has carried out a survey of the general public which shows any fall in demand whatsoever. The hon. Gentleman's entire case is a palpable myth and he should confess that he has based it on an inadequate and narrow survey and allow the House to spend its time on a more serious subject.
  Mr. Cook: I am sorry to detain the House so long on the matter, but the Secretary of State has intervened five times to make exactly the same point. Quite patently, he rests his entire defence on his belief, which I am sorry to

  641
  assure him is mistaken, that market research has revealed no reduction in the number of those coming forward for eye tests.
  I have two responses. First, the figures that I am quoting are not on a narrow base. They include one third of all the multiple branches and more than 10 per cent. of independent optometrists. That is a perfectly adequate large base. Secondly, it is not the case that all market research shows no reduction. I have here an RNIB survey and an RNIB press release. The first paragraph of that press release states that the survey indicates that about 2·25 million people have not taken sight tests in the past 12 months because they would have had to pay.
  The very research that the Secretary of State is asking us to believe shows exactly the deterrent effect to which I have referred. The press release goes on to say, as we would expect, that the very people who are most deterred are those on lower incomes. That market research which the Secretary of State is prepared to believe—the Secretary of State will no doubt accept it—will show that those on lower incomes are twice as likely to be deterred and that those on the lowest incomes are three times as likely to be deterred.
  The Government's amendment invites the House to congratulate the Government on its policy that
  "sight tests paid for by the National Health Service should continue to be available to those on low income".
  There are two reasons why that assurance should not persuade the House. First, there is the problem which is familiar with mean-tested benefits and which makes entirely predictable the result when applied to eye tests. Many of those who qualify do not know that they qualify and therefore never come forward to claim the benefits. Secondly, the means test used is a mean means test. It is the same means test that is used to test entitlement for free prescriptions. Anyone with an income that is £10 or £15 above income support levels will be excluded. Anyone with an income of £60 a week is unlikely to qualify for help with eye tests.
  To find out whether he or she qualifies, a person must first wade his or her way through form AG I, which comes in 17 pages and 19 parts. One will need good eyesight to get through it in the first place. I was recently sent a form by the Halifax building society inviting me to apply for a £5,000 loan. The form sent to test my entitlement ran to two pages, not 17. At the bottom there was an invitation to phone Tamsin if I had difficulty in filling in the form, and there was a photograph of Tamsin with her headphones on and plugged in, smiling and eager to respond to my queries.
  There is no Tamsin to help a person to read the 17 pages of AG1. Moreover, the first thing one reads at the top of the form is the reference to help with NHS charges and the cost of travel to hospital or to visit someone in prison. I have challenged that unfortunate opening statement before and have suggested that the Departments of Health and of Social Security should revise this opening gambit. The only change is that the reference to visiting someone in prison now appears in even bolder type. Thousands of pensioners who are confronted with that opening line will go no further. They are precisely the people whom we should be encouraging to come forward for an eye test and precisely the people whose eyesight may be deteriorating.
  The medical consequences of those people being deterred and not coming forward can be predicted accurately from the figures prepared by the British College
  642
  of Optometrists—not a trade organisation but the scientific and examining body for the profession. The college has prepared figures on the expected referrals from eye tests, from which we can predict the reduction in the number of referrals that is likely to result from a reduction of 3 million in the number of eye tests.
  The number of referrals for medical examination will fall by 160,000 cases. Those are the people with disturbing symptoms who are now being missed, members of the public who are unaware that their sight and perhaps health are at risk. Using the figures prepared by the college, we can predict their conditions. Among the 160,000 cases, there will be 26,000 cases of cataracts, probably 25,000 cases of glaucoma, 9,000 cases of macular degeneration, 11,000 cases of hypertension and 13,000 cases of diabetes.
  I come to the final absurdity. If only a third of those who are putting their sight at risk fail to come forward in time to avert blindness, the cost to the Government of supporting them will be about £50 million a year. I regret that I have expressed this personal tragedy as a cash figure, but I am trying to find an argument that can connect with the Treasury argument.
  What savings do the Government expect from charges for eye tests? The answer is £90 million. That saving would be halved by the cost of those who may go blind as a result of being deterred in one year from coming forward. Those savings will be wiped out in two years. The Government's amendment invites us to congratulate them on having made economies by introducing charges for eye tests, but there are no savings from those charges; there will only be in the longer run extra costs to the health budget for coping with those whose condition is not detected.
  Why did the Government get it so wrong? For the answer to that, we need look no further than the speech made by the Secretary of State in November 1988. When Opposition Members and even some Conservative Back Benchers told him that optometrists warned that they would be obliged to charge more than £10 for tests, the Secretary of State said that he did not believe that. He went on to say:
  "the charge for the eye test will steadily disappear, that is my strong personal opinion."—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 927]
  Quite why the Secretary of State imagined that optometrists would offer a free eye test once he had stopped paying them is a mystery that he did not explain to the House. The income to the optometrists' profession from test fees is equivalent to the entire profits of the profession. How they were expected to absorb such a major loss is a mystery, the answer to which the Secretary of State did not share with the House.
  A year after the introduction of charges for tests, the average charge is £12. A common charge is £15, and a charge of £30 has been recorded. When I challenged the Secretary of State six months ago to produce an optometrist who was providing an eye test free of charge, he cited an optometrist in Dover. On inquiry, all was not what it seemed in Dover. The optometrist there offered a free eye test only if someone bought a pair of spectacles after the test. If someone simply wanted an eye test, he had to pay for it.
  I do not deny that it is possible to find the odd isolated case of an optometrist who provides a free eye test. However, those cases are so few as to be of curiosity value. There is not the slightest evidence that, by their competition, optometrists in Dover or anywhere else are

  643
  having the slightest effect on the market price of tests in the big cities. On the contrary, the quarterly surveys of the Association of Optometrists showed that the price charged over the past year has tended to increase, not decrease.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: With regard to the £12 charge, we should get the figures into perspective. Will the hon. Member comment on the family expenditure survey for 1988, which shows that the average family spends £13·64 a week on tobacco and alcohol? In that context, is £12 every two years a large sum of money for a test? Is not the hon. Gentleman insulting the British public when he suggests that £12 will deter them from looking after their health?
  Mr. Alun Michael: That was a Labour gain.
  Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the intervention made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) very astutely described as a Labour gain.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke has illuminated the mists of ignorance and darkness with which we are trying to reason. We are not discussing the average family. Two thirds of those who visit optometrists do not constitute average families. They are pensioners, and four fifths of pensioners have incomes below £98 a week. We are concerned with people who must find £12 or £15 from a weekly income of perhaps £60, £70, £80 or even £90. While £12 or £15 might be a small sum to the hon. Member for Pembroke, it is not a small sum for that four fifths of pensioners. It is a tragedy for those pensioners that they find the conduct of the social policy of their nation in the hands of people who cannot comprehend what it is like to live on that sum of money.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose——
  Mr. Cook: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. He had his chance. I will not give him another opportunity to destroy the Secretary of State's case.
  I have one question above all others to which I should like the Secretary of State to reply. Is it still his strong opinion that the eye test charge will steadily disappear? Also, is he still prepared to tell the House that charges of £12 by independent optometrists and of £11·20 in Boots and in Dollond and Aitchisons, which have survived over the past year, will steadily disappear? If so, when will they disappear? How long must we wait until the market works its miracle?
  I pause to reflect on the wider lessons to be drawn from the fact that the Secretary of State has been so spectacularly wrong in his predictions to the House. Those predictions were based on the same dogma on which he rests his dramatic proposals for the rest of the Health Service. In 1988 he promised that, by introducing the market, there would be greater efficiency, because competition would drive down prices and widen choice. What has actually happened in the eye service is that the introduction of the market has increased the price and dramatically reduced productivity. It has also reduced the choice available to the public, because 250 branches of independent optometrists have closed.
  644
  I noted last month in Ellesmere that an optometrist business that had been operating since 1897 and had survived two world wars and a depression has been driven out of business by the first 18 months of this Secretary of State. Now the public of Ellesmere, if they wish to visit an optometrist, must travel to Oswestry.
  The lessons are clear—they are revealing. Competition in health care, in the case of the eye service, has resulted in higher prices, a reduction in the numbers treated, and a reduction in the number of places at which to be treated. Heaven help the Secretary of State if, next April, his new market in hospital care has exactly the same results for the public.
  The difference between the two Front Benches is neatly expressed in a letter from the recent junior Minister at the Department of Health who has now departed to the Department of Transport—a man for whom I had high regard until yesterday, when I discovered whom he had appointed as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I therefore have no compunction about quoting the letter that he wrote to optometrists, in which he himself made the remarkably revealing observation:
  "The Government does not have a policy regarding the price of private sight test fees. Private sight tests are commercial transactions between the optician and his or her patient.
  I hope this clarifies the situation."
  It certainly clarifies it. I regard it as an appalling statement by any Health Minister that his Government have no policy on the cost of an eye test. I cannot accept that that important matter of health policy should be left as a commercial transaction. It should be one of the first priorities of health policy that anyone who needs an eye test should be able to get one irrespective of whether he or she can afford the commercial transaction.
  In a spirit of charity, I put to the Secretary of State the thought that we all make mistakes. I have made mistakes in my time—one day when we are both retired, I shall tell him what they were. The Secretary of State can be forgiven for being wrong, but he cannot be forgiven for stubbornly refusing to face up to the fact that he has been wrong. Those who loudly deny their mistakes do not prove the strength of their convictions; they only establish their lack of courage.
  I have an example for the Government. The state of Alberta also ended free eye tests in July 1987. Twelve months later, it was found that there had been a 30 per cent. fall in the number of eye tests—a perfect parallel with our experience, but there the parallels diverge. The state Government of Alberta had the sense to recognise reality and the courage to recognise that they were wrong. They brought back the free eye test.
  It is now the Secretary of State's turn. I wait to hear whether he has the same good sense and the same courage to restore the free eye test that he took away 18 months ago. In the event that he is unable to do so, I end my remarks by correcting yet another of the mistakes in that speech of November 1988. At the end of his speech, the Secretary of State said:
  "I do not believe that any future Labour Government will withdraw this charge".—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol. 139, c. 930.]
  He was wrong again. It will be one of the first priorities of the next Labour Government to abolish charges for eye tests and to ensure that no one is deterred from getting an eye test because he or she cannot afford it.
  4.18 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "supports the Government in its view that those who can afford to pay for sight tests should do so and that the money which was previously spent by the National Health Service on free sight tests for those who could afford to pay is better spent in other ways in improving health care; believes that this will not lead to the nation's health or sight being put at risk nor deter those from seeking sight tests who need them; and fully supports the Government's policy that sight tests paid for by the National Health Service should continue to be available to those on low income, children and those most at risk of blindness from diabetes and glaucoma.".
  Care of the eyes is an extremely important part of any health care system and it is important that we do our utmost to ensure that we maintain a high standard of optical services and give everybody the service that they require to protect themselves against glaucoma and the consequences of diabetes, and to preserve good eyesight. That remains the Government's intention, and will be so.
  However, with the greatest respect, that argument is stale. It relates to the extent to which we should allow opticians to charge for the eye test that is made before spectacles are dispensed to people who are not in the exempt category and entitled to National Health Service spectacles. The argument is merely a re-run of one that we had last year. Since then there has been no evidence to change the position that I have described. It is a serious mistake for the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to rely so heavily on that point when, for example, committing a future Labour Government—if we should have one—to spending money on this subject. That is a serious misjudgment of priorities which, if ever carried out, would not serve any worthwhile health purpose.
  I begin by reminding the House of the effect of the Government's changes. We continued to pay for the eye test for about one third of the population. The major exempt categories were those on low incomes, children, and people susceptible to certain diseases. The remaining two thirds of the population are no longer entitled to go to an optician for an eye test for which the NHS will pay a fee.
  The effect of that change was obviously uncomfortable for opticians. When I refer to their vested interest, I am not referring to an illegitimate vested interest—like the rest of us, they are entitled to lobby from time to time in the interest of their cause. However, our change has put the opticians—the multiple chains and the independents—in the position of deciding whether to charge people who are no longer entitled to an NHS sight test and, if so, how much to charge them. We have now had a year of that so we can see where we are when discussing the possible consequences of the change.
  I accept that any reputable optician will prefer the previous system—if I were an optician, I expect that I would. Opticians used to have little cards in the window which read "NHS sight tests free to all." That was a perfectly proper, not unprofessional attraction to people to go in and contemplate buying spectacles. It meant that the optician had a guaranteed income from the public purse for every test carried out, at a fee set by the National Health Service and not, therefore, subject to competition for patients among the different outlets. The change has
  646
  meant that each optician now has to decide whether, and to what extent, to charge. Opticians no longer have those little cards in the window——
  Mr. Eddie Loyden rose——
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  A variety of charges has been imposed. I accept that the average is roughly that which the hon. Member for Livingston described. The hon. Gentleman conceded, fairly, that some opticians are offering the sight test free. I cite Duncan and Todd, Hendrys and Lannies. There are other examples across the country——
  Mr. Robin Cook: As the Secretary of State has specifically mentioned Duncan and Todd, I remind him and place on record the fact that Duncan and Todd introduced the free eye test in Scotland after writing to me to seek an assurance that the next Labour Government will abolish the charge for the eye test, on the basis that it could afford the experiment only until the next general election. If the Secretary of State is citing Duncan and Todd, he should remember that the free eye test will not survive the election unless a Labour Government are elected.
  Mr. Clarke: That shows that those opticians are worried about weakening the effect of the opticians' lobby on the Labour party. With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman's approach to this issue is extremely naive—which is unusual for him. I recommend that he reads the optical press of 12 months ago when the change was made, when many opticians were contemplating much lower charges and free tests. Immense pressure was brought to bear on opticians. I remember a letter that urged them not to play the Government's game. The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that it is a coincidence that opticians are still charging roughly the same as the NHS fee, except in the cases that I have cited, where free eye tests have already been introduced. Many opticians regard charging the patients who come into their practice less than others legitimately think to be the going rate for carrying out that work to be somehow letting the side down.
  Mr. Loyden: When the Secretary of State evaluates the benefits of free eye tests, he seems to ignore the fact that they are very much a part of preventive medicine. Indeed, as one who has experienced being diagnosed as suffering from glaucoma by an optician, I am convinced that that aspect of the eye test is vital. The Secretary of State appears to overlook that completely.
  Mr. Clarke: No. I acknowledge it. I urge everyone to have a regular eye test if there is any reason to believe that they need one. I accept that some diseases can be detected by eye tests. We are arguing about whether it is wrong for people outside the exempt categories to pay—most of them—about £10 to £11 once every two years for an important part of their health care. We are debating the consequences of most opticians having decided in practice to continue to charge a fee such as I have described.
  I shall respond to the challenge put to me about when competition will become more widespread. I think that it will become more widespread if the Labour party stops supporting the campaign for free eye tests. Opticians are travelling in hope that sooner or later there will be a Government who will give them back the assured income

  647
  without competition that they used to have. They are extremely reluctant to allow a competitive market to break out when Her Majesty's official Opposition promises, as far as I can see, no explicit extra expenditure on the Health Service except in this unlikely area and on dental checks, which are about the only items of NHS spending to which the Labour party is committed.
  I have studied the policy document of the hon. Member for Livingston and I seriously believe that the Labour party is in difficulties. The party is almost bereft of any health policy and is in danger of giving way to professional and sometimes even commercial lobbying when choosing its priorities.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Listening to the Secretary of State on this point, I am reminded of a gentleman whom I and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) came across last night at a public meeting on health. He was a Conservative-appointed general manager who was talking about NHS consultants in a health debate in a different context. Precisely the same thing struck both the hon. Gentleman and me last night as probably strikes the hon. Gentleman about the Secretary of State now. Cannot the Secretary of State realise that, at least in health, and in many other areas of social policy, too, professionals sometimes react to events and seek assurances out of not commercial self-interest but general care about health standards and their patients? Will he acknowledge that for once, instead of accusing experts or professional groups within the Health Service of commercial, mean-minded motives every time they seek to disagree with him when the best interests of preventive health care and preventive medicine might be their priority?
  Mr. Clarke: I do not regard accusing people of having, among other things, commercial motives as necessarily a wicked attack on them. Of course, opticians are skilled professional people upon whose care we all depend. Their prime motive is the care of their patients. But by and large spectacles and eye tests in Britain are provided by commercial chains and organisations as well as independent practices. Outfits such as Dollond and Aitchison and Boots Opticians, with which I have had some contact in my constituency, are perfectly legitimate commercial organisations which have a wholly respectable but commercial interest in the outcome of this discussion.
  We should all be worried about—indeed, I believe that we all have the same genuine concern, and that the hon. Member for Livingston is mistaken in choosing this cause for that reason—the consequence for health care and preventive medicine to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) referred. That is where we must turn to surveys. The whole case of the Opposition that we are threatening the eye care of the nation is based on the proposition that the ending of NHS tests for two thirds of the population led to a reduction in the number of eye tests. I shall seek to demonstrate that that is untrue. There is no evidence to support it. It is wrong. The Opposition's case is based on a total myth.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also tell the House how much
  648
  revenue comes from the charges and what would be the impact of their abolition on, for example, the number of hip replacement operations?
  Mr. Clarke: The cost of restoring free NHS eye tests to two thirds of the population—including everyone in this Chamber who at present faces the wicked burden of paying £10 for an eye test—would be £90 million. The Labour party wants to spend more than the entire budget of a reasonable-sized, English district health authority on giving everyone in this Chamber a free eye test. That is an absurd choice of priorities, considering all the demands that come piling in on the NHS. It is urged because it is said that the number of people having eye tests has fallen since charges were introduced, but that is not the case.
  There have been various surveys. The hon. Member for Livingston correctly cited the surveys that are based on information collected from some, but not all, opticians. I do not doubt the bona fides of those who collected it, but the figures are derived from a section of the profession and some of the chains. I suspect that the tendency to respond to surveys is strongest for opticians who lost out in the extremely turbulent market which was created over the past 18 months.
  I believe that the profession and some of the chains created that turbulent market. It was also unavoidable. We had a controversial debate about the change. It was flagged up all over the place that charges were to be introduced in April 1989, with the result that a huge number of people were attracted to come for a free eye test while it lasted. Those who campaigned against us while we were contemplating the changes did not point out that many people would continue to be exempt. As we all know and as the profession concedes, the result was a huge increase in the number of people who had their eyes tested before April 1989. The obvious result was a huge drop in the number of people who had their eyes tested thereafter, if only in the short term. A wave effect was created. I remember that some branches of Dollond and Aitchison stayed open till midnight in the last few days while free eye tests were available to encourage people to rush in. As a result, the first quarter of 1989 saw a big increase in the number of tests while the next quarter saw a big decrease.
  Some practices were hit by that. It depended on the business acumen and position of those involved. Clearly, if the market is so transformed in the short term, some businesses lose out, some prosper and others are bought up by chains. Considerable turbulence was created in the market, partly by our changes, but greatly aggravated by the reaction of the profession in response to them. Now, after an interval, attempts are being made to establish the level of demand for eye tests as we return to normality.
  The hon. Gentleman relies wholly on figures obtained from some opticians which, I am sure, have been subjected to expert analysis. He has ignored the surveys of the public. It is no good saying that it is all market research. If one wants to discover how many people are having their eyes tested, the only way to produce a reliable estimate is to take an independent sample of the public.
  The Royal National Institute for the Blind carried out one survey, but the hon. Gentleman did not appear to have read beyond its press release. It carried out a telephone survey of a small sample. The first question was:
  "Have you paid for a sight test in the last 12 months?"
  That question is not referred to in the press release because the answer made it clear that there was no apparent

  649
  reduction in the number of people whom one would expect to give the affirmative answer. The RNIB then further questioned those people who said that they had not paid for an eye test in a series of leading questions about why they had not had a sight test. Most people who do not have an eye rest usually do not have one because they have not thought about it. I have had an eye test in the past 12 months, but in the past when I have not, that has been why. The questions heavily suggested that cost was a reason for not having a test. Yet the survey shows that the number who said that they had had an eye test was in line with past trends.
  The other survey—which has already been mentioned—was carried out for the Association of Optometrists by MORI. No doubt trying to anticipate the results of our survey, the association had asked MORI to carry out a survey using similar methods, asking people whether they had been given a sight test by the optician—not the hospital or the doctor—since Christmas. Then, like the hon. Member for Livingston, it tried to ridicule the results.
  I regret to say that the MORI poll showed that, if anything, the number of people who had had sight tests had gone up since the charges were introduced. Ten per cent. of those polled—equivalent to more than 4 million people—said that they had had a sight test since Christmas. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a startling figure; he is probably right when he says that there was over-reporting, and that we must take off 15 or 25 per cent. to obtain an accurate figure. However, what he did not add was that the figure is so high that, even if that were done, there would still be no apparent drop in the number of people who had had eye tests.
  The Association of Optometrists tried to dismiss the results of what was the best survey so far carried out. It said:
  "The Association of Optometrists believe that the phrase `since Christmas' is very loose. Christmas conjures up memories of the festive season, which for most people starts in November."
  I do not think that most people think that Christmas is in November. When testing the recollection of the general public, it is best to choose some occasion that they may remember, and the phrase "since Christmas" is probably the best way of prompting memory: most people remember what they did before and after Christmas. The idea that "since Christmas" could be thought to include November is—with the greatest respect—a fatuous attempt to discredit the evidence. Even if people's recollections are incorrect and a proportion of respondents are discounted, there is still no evidence of any decline in demand.
  Mr. Kennedy: As the Secretary of State has quoted the Association of Optometrists directly, will he do two things? First, will he note that the views with which he takes issue were not obtained by means of amateurish opinion polling, but have been verified by MORI—I hope that he would agree that MORI probably knows more about opinion polling than any of us—and the Association of Optometrists? Secondly, will he respond to another point in the press release to which he referred? The Association of Optometrists and MORI argue that, to focus the question directly, the phrase should have been "since December 31". What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think?
  Mr. Clarke: I have not yet had a chance to contact Bob Worcester of MORI to ask whether he agrees with the phrase "since November". As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, asking people to remember whether something happened after 31 December is less likely to produce an accurate answer than asking them about what happened "since Christmas". Most of us cannot remember exact months or dates. Even if we allow for over-reporting, the survey does not demonstrate any evidence of a reduction in the number of sight tests; quite the reverse.
  Mr. Michael: As the Secretary of State seems to be spending all his speech denigrating those who have sought to reach the truth, will he in the next few minutes give any fresh information that he has perhaps sought himself?
  Mr. Clarke: It will be my pleasure to do so. The Government—fulfilling an undertaking that was given when the original Bill was being discussed—have carried out their own survey, which we delayed until the market had settled down and the wave effect had shown some signs of coming out.
  We asked NOP to conduct a survey on behalf of the Department into the number of NHS and private sight tests during the first three months of this year. We released the results of that survey today and the details have been placed in the Library. Five sets of surveys were carried out in March and in April and 10,000 adults responded to the NOP questions. It is quite the best sample survey to have been carried out so far and it is adequate for any statistical purposes. The results have been made available together with wholly independent comment on the surveys by the Government statistical service.
  The survey asked whether a person had had a sight test since Christmas and, on the basis of the response to that question, some 5 million people had their sight tested in the first three months of this year. That is a startlingly high result. If one extrapolated from previous trends up to 1987, only 3·5 million people should have had their eyes tested in that time. The result implies a substantial increase in the number of people having eye tests compared with the years up to 1989.
  The results of the survey are startlingly high. Almost certainly it contained an element of over-reporting and therefore one must discount the results to some extent. The hon. Member for Livingston said that there had been between 15 and 25 per cent. over-reporting and attempted to demonstrate that that rubbished the MORI poll. I pointed out that even that level of over-reporting does not rubbish the poll as it still gets one back to the trend in the number of eye tests that existed before 1987.
  If one discounts the figures in the NOP poll by 15 per cent. it still means there has been a great increase in the number of people having sight tests. If one makes the ludicrous assumption that half the people involved in the survey were wrong about when they had their sight test, one still gets back to the trend that existed before 1987. On any view the survey shows that the number of sight tests in the first three months of the year is at least well in line with the increases in the 10 years to 1987.
  The past 15 months have been entirely consistent with what any reasonable person might have expected. Before the changes were introduced there was a rush and an abnormally high number of people had a sight test in the first three months of 1989. There was then an inevitable

  651
  dip, after which the number of sight tests has recovered to its former normal level. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston to say that I did not believe that he has a shred of evidence to contradict the surveys that have been carried out. To date three surveys have been conducted and they all show that the number of sight tests undertaken remain about the same. The hon. Gentleman's case is based on an absurd mistake in response to lobbying from the profession.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that the documents relating to the NOP survey are in the Library. I went there because I wanted to have a look at that survey, but it is not available.
  Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not in the Chair at the beginning of the debate, but had you been, you would have seen the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State scurrying round the Chamber handing out the documents to a number of Conservative Members. Could it be that those documents include the report on the NOP poll to which the Secretary of State referred? If so, information is being given to Conservative Members which has been denied to the rest of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I deprecate hon. Members scurrying round the Chamber slipping out pieces of paper, but I have no knowledge of their contents—they might have been betting slips for all I know. I am sure that the Secretary of State is ready to comment on the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
  Mr. Clarke: One hundred copies of the report are available in the Vote Office. My advisers intended to place them there at the end of my speech, but they will put them there now if hon. Members want that.
  Mr. Michael: Let us have a look at them.
  Mr. Clarke: I do not mind that. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later and I shall look forward to hearing how he can dismiss the evidence of three public surveys to show that there has been no fall in demand. Presumably he will say that he prefers the returns from 10 per cent. of opticians. I shall greatly look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
  It is total nonsense to keep asserting that people are not having eye tests, but that is the basis upon which the Labour party is committed to spending £90 million of public money, for no worthwhile health advantage.
  Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that we have produced no evidence, but he knows perfectly well that we have produced voluminous evidence collected by people of impeccable independence and with statistical experience. He chooses to say that all that evidence is worthless because it stems from optometrists, all of whom are in a grand conspiracy to distort the figures. I have produced figures from 1,600 outlets of optometrists who carry out eye tests and they consistently report a decline in demand. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has waved aside all those 1,600, can he produce
  652
  a single optometrist whom he has consulted and a single set of figures from any batch that he can reconcile with the wholly incredible results of his opinion polls?
  Mr. Clarke: I have already dealt with the evidence, upon which the hon. Gentleman is relying, that comes from some sections of the profession which have responded to the poll. The hon. Gentleman is rendered speechless by the accounts I have given of the surveys—two of which he knew about—of the public which show that there is no evidence to support his case. The hon. Gentleman has again repeated his commitment that a future Labour Government will spend £90 million on eye tests. In terms of the NHS that sum is a staggering resource as it greatly exceeds the total budget of many district health authorities.
  The NHS is well financed now—better than it has ever been—and I expect more to be spent on it. If I had £90 million more at my disposal eye tests would not figure on the first several pages of my priorities for expenditure. The hon. Gentleman has a problem because he cannot get his colleagues to agree to a commitment to spend more on the NHS. The shadow Treasury team is to be congratulated for showing common sense. I do not normally congratulate them, but they realise that following a period when cash spending has gone up by 20 per cent. in two years it is not possible for any Government of any party to contemplate increasing spending at a faster rate than that.
  The hon. Member for Livingston has been trying to wriggle out of that problem and I think that he has been in trouble with his colleagues from time to time. Until recently he kept on trotting out a figure of £3 billion that might be produced during the lifetime of a Parliament. Obviously he has lost that argument because when one looks at the Labour party policy document no figure of any kind appears. There is a vague reference to underfunding, but it might take more than the lifetime of a Parliament to put that right. The Labour party is not promising to spend more on health. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, all that he manages to get in a vague, short and lightweight passage on health is a promise to restore free eye tests and free dental checks. That represents an astonishing set of priorities. I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman got that past his Treasury colleagues with his argument that one can save about £50 million by restoring the free eye test. This afternoon we have exposed that argument as wrong. On that occasion the shadow Treasury team showed a lapse in concentration.
  There is no evidence to suggest that the restoration of free eye tests would increase the number of tests undertaken. Therefore, one would increase the number of tests undertaken. Therefore, one would not detect any disease quicker and there would be no saving to hospitals, but that is the argument that the hon. Gentleman appears to have swung across his hon. Friends when drafting the policy document. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go away and decide whether it is wise for the one and only spending commitment of the Labour party to be devoted to saving £11 every two years for at least a comparatively better-off section of society.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The commitment given by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is in direct contradiction to the statement of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) a couple of months ago that

  653
  there were only two spending commitments by the Labour party, and the restoration of free eye tests was not one of them. Surely this is just like the promise to abolish prescription charges in 1965; those charges were abolished in 1965, but they were brought back in 1968 and were set 25 per cent. higher than in 1965.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). If my hon. Friend continues to scrutinise the speeches of Labour's Treasury spokesmen, he will see that they do not mention health at all. There is no commitment by the Labour party because it would not be possible to exceed our spending plans. The hon. Member for Derby, South must have had a momentary lapse when she allowed this commitment to pass. I hope that when she sees the results of the various surveys she will reconsider her position.
  Our priorities are to make a better National Health Service, to expand services generally and to devote money to the cause of better patient care, including eye care. Labour's campaign is stale. It is based on a false premise and should be abandoned. Now that we have become used to free eye tests only for those who need the support of the Government, any sensible level of priority should tell us that that is where we should leave the matter.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I propose to be brief and mainly to confine my remarks to my constituency. Charging for sight tests has placed a financial restriction on public access to a primary health measure. The imposition of the charge has deterred people from taking early steps in perhaps preventing the need for more treatment later and in the early detection of more serious conditions such as hypertension, one of the most common predisposing causes of a stroke, and glaucoma, which is a potentially blinding disease but often treatable. We are told that prevention is better than cure, but paying for access to preventive health care has deterred many and they run the risk of having treatable medical conditions go undetected at an early stage.
  I carried out a survey, but perhaps I should have gone to dentists and asked them for information because what the Secretary of State said suggested that information given by opticians cannot be trusted. I went to opticians in Durham and carried out a small survey. I found that at its worst 60 per cent. fewer people were attending for eye examinations than in the year before the charges were introduced. Most disturbingly, the figure proved to be higher for old-age pensioners, especially for those who were not in receipt of income support. Those people have had their right to a free eye test withdrawn and are most likely to suffer the consequences of developing sight-threatening conditions through being discouraged from attending for routine eye examinations. To discourage such people is monstrous, given that many sight-threatening conditions are treatable after early detection.
  The Secretary of State does not seem to take any notice of or accept any information supplied by opticians. Letters that I have received from opticians in my constituency show that they are deeply worried. I wrote to every optician in my constituency and they all expressed misgivings. A Mr. Grundy, who has two practices in my constituency, wrote to me saying:
  654
  "I am very concerned that because these people are now discouraged from attending for routine eye examinations by charges, they are at much greater risk of developing sight threatening conditions which would in the past have been prevented by early detection and treatment."
  I accept that the Secretary of State does not place much credence in that, because it is only a letter from an optician, but it is a damning comment on the situation.
  Figures from a practice in my constituency show that 170 old-age pensioners who were not in receipt of income support attended for eye tests in the three months leading up to the introduction of charges. In the three months after the introduction of charges the number had dropped to 63. Even taking into account the distortion of the statistics caused by people rushing to get a free eye test before the charges were introduced, there is undoubtedly a marked drop in that practice's normal testing figures.
  A worrying aspect of the survey was that a large proportion of the missing numbers were people who received income support but apparently did not realise that they were entitled to a free eye examination. Obviously, that can be serious for pensioners. At one practice the number of old-age pensioners receiving income support had dropped from 86 in the months leading up to charging to 56 after the introduction of charges. I was told by another practice that the receptionist was spending a great deal of her time trying to allay the fears of worried pensioners who did not know their entitlement and for whom the £11·20 is far beyond their means. Unfortunately, only a proportion of those worried pensioners found that they could have a free sight test. The rest, those not in receipt of income support but nevertheless without the means to pay, had to face the decision that they would have to do without the much-needed sight test.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: I earned out a similar survey in my constituency and it produced exactly the same results. It showed a reduction of up to 30 per cent. in the number of people going for eye tests. The Secretary of State does not accept the evidence of opticians, but one optician referred to me the case of an 83-year-old woman who thought that she was not entitled to a free eye test. When she realised that she was, the optician examined her and found a tumour in her eye. She was referred to the eye hospital in Manchester and was told that the tumour was so large, because of the delay in having the eye test, that she would probably have to have the eye removed. Is that the sort of health care that we can expect from the Government? Pensioners are scared to go for eye tests because they cannot afford the cost.
  Mr. Steinberg: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He gives an example of what can happen if an old-age pensioner or anybody else does not get an eye test in time. There are hundreds of such cases throughout the country, and unless the Government recognise what is happening such stories will become all too familiar.
  The figures that I have quoted cover the six months from January to June 1989. When the figures are broken down month by month, it is seen that, in the months before charging, the average number of pensioners attending for routine eye tests ranged from 11 to 29. In April, the month in which charges were introduced, the number attending fell to just one or two pensioners. That was true for every practice that supplied me with information. In the following months of May and June, the figure rose to an

  655
  average of six or seven. While the initial refusal or inability to pay for sight tests waned slightly, the fact remains that the number of people attending for sight tests has halved. The situation today has hardly improved.
  It is an inescapable fact that a sizeable proportion of people, mainly pensioners, no longer attend their optician for a routine eye test. There is no doubt among opticians with whom I have been in contact that there has been no improvement in the past 12 months. While charges remain and while pensioners have to set aside part of their income for the poll tax, there will not be a full return to the pre-April 1989 figures. If nothing else, the Government must consider making all pensioners exempt. Out of a small income, pensioners cannot pay their proportion of the poll tax and pay for a sight test. They will have to make a choice and, as they have to pay the poll tax, they will have to do without the sight test.
  Mr. Grundy told me that one of his practices used to rely entirely on pensioners. Now he does not see one pensioner at the practice and has had to reduce the opening times to two days a week. Regular patients at that practice no longer attend, and he attributes the loss purely to the charge for eye tests.
  So that I cannot be accused of distorting the statistics by quoting figures for the three months before charging was introduced, I shall quote figures given to me yesterday by Mr. Grundy which leave no doubt about the destructive nature of the charge for eye tests. In January 1988 and January 1989, before the charge was introduced, there were 108 and 118 sight tests respectively. In January 1990, after the charge was introduced, there were 80 sight tests. In February 1988 and February 1989, the figures were 120 and 112 respectively and in February 1990 the number was 68. In March 1988 and March 1989, the figures were 102 and 135 respectively, while in March 1990 the total had dropped to 77.
  The figures speak for themselves. In each instance there has been a monthly reduction of between 40 and 60 sight tests following the introduction of charges. That is proof, if proof were needed, of inability and reluctance to pay for a service which should never have been costed. In my constituency—I am sure that it is not unique—there has been a 30 per cent. fall in the number of sight tests. Primary health care is all about prevention and it is imperative that people and prevention are put before pounds.
  It is clear from my research and the evidence that has been given to me that the eye-test charge has had a serious effect on the number of people attending opticians. The argument used by some Conservative Members, including, the Secretary of State—I remember clearly the occasion on which he first advanced it—was that market forces would result in so much competition between opticians that charges would be eliminated. That has not happened yet and we wait for evidence that it will. In effect, opticians got together and set the charge for their area. That is not meant to be a criticism of opticians. It is a matter of fact and a natural thing for them to do. They had to do it because there was no alternative.
  The criticism must be directed to where the blame lies, and that is with the Secretary of State and the Government generally. There can be no justification for charging for a primary health care measure, especially for one which is able to detect serious medical conditions at an early stage.
  656
  It is an especially important test. Even in terms of the Government's philosophy, the charges are not cost effective. It can be said only that the charge is vindictive and that it hits old people in particular. It should be abolished forthwith.
  5.2 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: There are few things that I like less than speaking and voting against the Government. I am happy to say that it is a rare occurrence when I have to do either of those things. For about 99 per cent. of the time I agree entirely with what they do and I support them in Divisions with great enthusiasm and faithfulness. I believe profoundly, however, in following my convictions, and one of my convictions is that one serves the party better by putting convictions above the diktats, arm twisting or threats of the Whips. As I have said on every occasion when charges for eye tests have been debated, the Government are wrong, and for at least seven reasons.
  First, charges for eye tests breach the basic principle, which was adhered to for over 40 years, that whatever else is chargeable within the National Health Service, a check or test should be free. I have no objection to charges when a check or test has revealed that glasses or other appliances are necessary, so long as the individual can afford to pay. It is very much to our advantage to know as soon as we can if a person needs attention. It is cheaper to remedy the defect at an early stage and it is very much easier to deal with it. It is also much more likely to be cured.
  Secondly, eye-test charges are extremely discriminatory. There are no charges for blood tests, cancer checks, heart scans, barium meals or X-rays. It has been suggested that anyone can afford to pay £12 for a test because some people spend that much on cigarettes, but that argument could just as easily be applied to all other vital tests. It is odd that the Government seem not to understand that eye tests will often reveal the early signs of cancer, blood pressure or diabetes. It is strange that a block should suddently be imposed on one preventive test while other such tests romp along without interference. I do not know whether this means that eventually we are to have charges for other checks. I should like to know whether they are to be introduced.
  Thirdly, the money that is saved is not to be spent on projects for which greater need is claimed. It has—[ Interruption.] I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will listen, because I am speaking with great conviction. It has been made clear in earlier debates that the money that is saved—it had been estimated that it will be about £70 million per annum—will be spent on preventive medicine. It seems that it will not be spent on hip replacements or anything of that sort. Ministers have said that the money saved will be spent on preventive medicine. But eye tests are preventive medicine. It seems that the Government are saying, "We are saving money on food to spend it on food", or, "We are saving money on clothes to spend it on clothes." I am prepared to admit that there are different and more valuable types of food, or types of clothing, but surely there is no suggestion that eye tests are an inferior form of preventive care and do not amount to important primary health care. It is nonsensical to say that we are saving money on preventive care in the form of eye tests so that we can spend it on other forms of preventive care.

  657
  Fourthly, it has been recognised and accepted—my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has not suggested otherwise—that eye tests can reveal the first signs of many serious diseases. There is no doubt about that. It seems absurd that we should be denying ourselves the ability to spot the first signs of important diseases such as heart disease and cancer by introducing charges. That action has led undoubtedly to a reduction in the number of people seeking eye tests. My right hon. and learned Friend has argued that there has been no reduction, but I must tell him that there are signs that he is wrong. Indeed, the signs cannot be doubted. It worries me that the evidence has been discounted because some of the data have been obtained from opticians. The survey of the Association of Optometrists and the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians revealed a 32·4 per cent. reduction in the number of eye tests being carried out. The Government's statistics are not suspect—they are plainly inaccurate.
  I tabled a question in which I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Health whether she would ensure that the survey, which has been referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, of the number of tests carried out during the first quarter of 1990 would be based on information obtained from the records of ophthalmic opticians instead of the recollection of patients. My hon. Friend replied that the information would be obtained from patients to ensure that the results were clearly independent. Any medical practitioner in any area of medicine will cheerfully tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that memories are notoriously fallible when determining when a test or check was carried out. It is not uncommon for a doctor to ask a patient when he or she last came to the surgery and to be told that it was two years ago, when in fact it was four years ago. And when a patient says that it was four years since he last came to see the doctor, sometimes it is really eight years. People cannot remember accurately. It seems extraordinary to reach important conclusions on the basis of people's memories.
  I could understand my right hon. and learned Friend discounting the statistics given by opticians if they had relied on their memories, but they had not. They relied on their records. I strongly resent any suggestion that ophthalmic opticians—professional medical men—would falsify their records for the purpose of the survey.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke indicated dissent.
  Dame Jill Knight: It is a question not just of falsifying statistics for the purpose of this debate but of defrauding the Inland Revenue. If it is true that ophthalmic opticians are deliberately altering their records, something is seriously wrong.
  Mr. Dalyell: Did the hon. Lady notice that the Secretary of State shook his head vigorously when she made her point about opticians' records? Perhaps she will ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks that opticians are doing something that borders on the deceitful. Are their records sincerely and accurately kept, or are they not?
  Dame Jill Knight: My right hon. and learned Friend's speech will be read with great interest outside this House. He said that the profession was honourable but that he discounted its statistics because the profession itself had
  658
  produced them. Surely that is the same as saying that the opticians falsified their records. That is the only possible interpretation that one can place on his remarks.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Three public surveys have shown that the opticians' figures are wrong. We are debating why they are wrong. It is not for me to comment, because I have not even seen the full results of the survey, but it was not based on records from all opticians. It was based on returns from some opticians. I offered as the most likely explanation for the discrepancy that the opticians most likely to respond to the survey were those who had lost out in the competitiveness of the past two years. The country is full of newly opened opticians' shops.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) reminded me that one has just opened in the centre of Nottingham. I do not know to what extent those new businesses responded to the surveys, but they are responsible for the loss of trade by one practice in Durham, which now opens only two days a week. I am making the point that there were three excellent public surveys showing the level of the public's use of outlets, and showing also that the figures produced by the Association of Optometrists were inaccurate.
  Dame Jill Knight: The "excellent" surveys to which my right hon. and learned Friend refers were all based on memory. I make the point that memories can be fallible, whereas the records of a practice set down in black and white cannot possibly be challenged.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree, as the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) ought to do, that whereas the records of one practice provide an accurate picture of the number of people who have had their eyes tested there, the best way of identifying how many members of the general public have had eye tests is to question the general public? Opticians' practices are opening and closing all the time. One only has to walk down the high streets of England to see that the nature of optical practice is dramatically changing.
  Dame Jill Knight: My right hon. and learned Friend may believe that opticians' practices open and close as easily as that, but I assure him that the ones with which I have been connected have been in business since the very beginning of the profession.
  Mr. Steinberg: The Secretary of State suggests that I wrote to only one practice. In fact, I wrote to virtually every practice in my constituency, and I received a similar reply from them all. I cited one practice as an example, but I could have cited half a dozen more.
  Mr. David Lightbown (Lords Commissioner to tlhe Treasury) indicated dissent.
  Dame Jill Knight: I believe that the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) also mentioned that there were slight differences between the responses that he received, which is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) will be pleased to hear. He imagined that the responses were all exactly the same, and I am glad to have confirmation that they were not.
  Another point of significance in view of my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks is that 10,000 people were involved in the Government survey whereas the AOP

  659
  survey covered 4 million people. I cannot believe that—surprise, surprise—they all just happened to say much the same thing.
  I again draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to the Economists Advisory Group report. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made mention of Professor Peter Hart, who is surely a reputable man, and one who works, as a statistician, in an honourable profession. He is emeritus professor of statistics at Reading university, and a man of his calibre who produces a report on behalf of the Economists Advisory Group can surely be relied upon to give an honest answer.
  Professor Hart reported that the number of people undergoing tests since charges were introduced has declined by 32·4 per cent. The hon. Member for Livingston conceded that there was a sharp increase in the number of tests when the public knew that they would shortly be charged. Even so, that jump is estimated to have accounted for fewer than 1 million additional tests. Therefore, whereas the number of eye tests in 1988–89 was 13·2 million, the usual number was 12·2 million annually. Presumably it is fair to say that the extra 1 million tests are accounted for by people trying to beat the charges. In any event, in 1989–90 the number of tests fell to 8·9 million. That must be a source of worry and concern to my right hon. and learned Friend. That is hard data—3·3 million people, more or less, have been deterred from having eye tests.
  Fifthly, it is untrue to say that people who are not eligible for free tests can easily afford the £12 fee. My right hon. and learned Friend argued today that it is likely that tests will eventually be free—but that cannot happen, for two reasons. One is that, as a result of laws passed by our Government, anyone is entitled to go to an optician, undergo a test and be given a prescription—and then take it down the road to a spectacle bar and have it made up there. It is breaking the law for an optician to say, "I will test your eyes provided that you buy your spectacles from us." First, opticians may not get any return or any possibility of a return when they have spent time and professional expertise on testing someone's eyes. Secondly, some 20 to 25 per cent. of all people who go to have their eyes tested do not need glasses, and therefore opticians would not be able to recoup any funds. A figure approaching 50 per cent. of ophthalmic opticians' time could be spent on such people, and if they did tests for nothing they would get no return. How on earth can professional people who have trained for some four years, and who know what they are about, open a practice and keep it open and pay receptionists and all the other charges involved if they get no return for 45 or 50 per cent. of the time that they work? It is not feasible.
  I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that it is highly unlikely that eye tests will ever be free. I do not understand why he said so, unless, perhaps—this thought just struck me—he is saying that people who need glasses would pay extra to make up for other people having tests free who did not need them. There is no other way of achieving free tests.
  Sometimes I think that we do not all understand how difficult some people find it to make ends meet. We should always be sympathetic to that. People are being pressurised by mortgage costs and have all sorts of other
  660
  difficulties to meet in their financial lives. Not everyone who is not entitled to a free eye test has no problem in finding £12 and we have to recognise that. It is not even a case of tests once every two years, because some people need them every six months. A woman who wrote to me recently was in that position because of a congenital eye problem, but she was not eligible for free tests.
  I have always worried about the problems of parents, who put their young and growing children first. I wonder how many of us know what it is to keep a young child in shoes, never mind anything else. I am quite sure that many parents will say that there might not be anything wrong with their eyes this time, and "Johnny needs new shoes".
  The other category of people who worry me are the elderly. There is no doubt that they are up to five times more likely to suffer from eye disease or degeneration than younger people. While it is perfectly true that not all elderly people need help from the Government, why do we give elderly people free prescriptions? If they are old-age pensioners they get free prescriptions whatever their income. Yet it would be fair to say that many prescriptions are not as important as having an eye test. Why have free prescriptions but make people pay for eye tests? Many old persons may well go blind if they cannot afford an eye test and that worries me greatly.
  People can have free eye tests at hospitals, and more and more people outside this place will recognise that and ask their doctors to give them a chit to get such tests at the hospital. We shall be in trouble because the cost of a hospital eye test to the Government is somewhere between £25 and £50. I have checked that and there is no doubt about it; it is true. Where is the economic sense of paying up to £50 for someone to have an eye test in a hospital, but failing to pay £12 to a trained ophthalmic optician to do the test instead? Pretty soon, pressure on eye departments will cause problems, because people will wake up to the fact that they can have free tests there. I do not believe that they have realised that.
  My final point knocks on the head for ever my right hon. and learned Friend's obviously sincere belief that there has been no drop in the number of eye tests. Practice closures can be seen all over the country. Some 250 practices closed this year and many rural areas will be without an optometrist. I must warn hon. Members about that. There seems to be a general disinclination in this place to love opticians. I sometimes wonder how many hon. Members, or their mothers, were frightened by an ophthalmic optician. There has been a sustained campaign against opticians. However, it is true that if the closures, which are now inevitable, take place in rural areas, many people who desperately need health care, and who are entitled to get it for nothing, will not be able to get that care. That also worries me.
  I predict that there will probably be a loss of some 10 per cent. of ophthalmic practices within the next year because many of them are now working from hand to mouth. However much my right hon. and learned Friend tries to deny it, it is true that many ophthalmic opticians are going out of business. That is neither wise nor right. I beg my right hon. Friends in the Government to consider the possibility of helping the aged, who are in far greater danger than anyone else. If they cannot do anything else, for goodness' sake will they give special help to pensioners?
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), as is traditionally the case, speaks on this subject with detailed insight and common sense. However, perhaps what is most significant is that, as the first speaker from the Conservative Back Benches, she spoke not one word of support for her own Secretary of State. Not that that is liable to sway him, as he does not seem to be a Secretary of State who wants to listen to information or to consult individuals or organisations in various fields of health care. Indeed, he has something of a track record, and clearly delights in the way that he does not consult those people with knowledge within the field of his ministerial responsibility whom common sense would suggest that he should consult.
  If one wants to buy a car, it is likely that one will want to ask friends who drive motor vehicles how they find different cars, and to discover the consumer and public view. The chances are that one will also speak to a car salesman or a mechanic. Similarly, the Secretary of State today laid weight upon a survey which has just been published at last. I find it a completely frustrating feature of this institution that, on the day that we are debating the issue, the information on which the conclusions in the Secretary of State's speech are based becomes available only when his backside hits the green leather at the end of his speech. That does not make for well-informed debate from Conservative Members or from the Opposition.
  In the latter stages of his speech, the Secretary of State was like a drowning man clutching at the one piece of flotsam floating past.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Let me explain, in case it is thought that publishing it today was a device, that we intended to publish the survey next week. The hon. Gentleman knows that at the last minute the Labour party decided to table this motion. As my enemies had delivered themselves into my hands by returning to this corny old subject, I was unable to resist the temptation to bring it forward today. It contains the best and the most accurate information that anybody has to hand about the number of people having eye tests.
  Mr. Kennedy: There is a veneer of plausibility about that, but it contains a number of extremely contentious points. I concede that the topic for debate was changed at short notice, but even if it had been known that the debate would be held at the end of this year, the Secretary of State would not have made the information available until the end of his speech on that occasion.
  Mr. Michael: Does not the hon. Gentleman at least welcome the fact that the debate was brought forward because of widespread and serious concern about the topic?
  Mr. Kennedy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  The Secretary of State is unwilling to consult those who are most affected and those with the best knowledge—the opticians. The Secretary of State's report, published today, refers to the survey of over 1,700 opticians that was carried out by the Liberal Democrats some months ago. On 17 May 1990, the Under-Secretary of State for Health wrote to me thanking me for enclosing the results of the Liberal Democrat optical survey, but he echoed the Secretary of State's argument that there is no point in consulting the
  662
  professionals because they have an axe to grind. The only people whom the Government want to consult are the consumers; that is the only way to get the answers that the Government want. The Under-Secretary went on to say:
  "It would, therefore, be wrong to rely entirely on information supplied by providers alone."
  According to the survey that we have heard about this afternoon, it is quite all right for the Secretary of State to rely entirely on information provided only by consumers. The sense of that, both in the English language and in terms of the Government's health policy, is that the Secretary of State is trying to get a judicial blend in order to inform his actions concerning what both the professionals—the optometrists—and patients have found out for themselves. The optometrist surveys that have been referred to in the debate unanimously gave a thumbs down to the Secretary of State's policy. The Secretary of State's survey of consumers alone provides different information and he bases his entire argument on that information.
  That is in complete contrast to the logic of the statement made to me on 17 May by the Under-Secretary of State for Health. Dismissing all the surveys that had been made before the Department of Health survey, which has floated down, like manna from heaven, on to the Secretary of State's lap today, the Under-Secretary of State for Health said on 17 May about all the previous surveys:
  "They cannot at this stage be taken as a serious indicator of future trend."
  By 6 June, the one survey that the Secretary of State has come out with is the definitive indicator of future trend. It is the one to end all arguments and all debate. That is the kind of nonsense with which we are being entertained by the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Department of Health.
  The Secretary of State quoted selectively from today's so-called definitive five-star results. According to the summary on the front page:
  "Whilst there is a disparity between NOP's results for NHS sight testing and the known number of NHS sight tests paid for in the first quarter of 1990, there is no evidence, from this survey, of a fall in sight testing in the first quarter of 1990."
  A little more detail about the disparity is to be found in paragraph 6.2:
  "The disparity between NOP's results for NHS sight testing and the known number of NHS sight tests paid for casts some doubt on the credibility of the results."
  I am happy to let those who devised and carried out the survey speak for themselves.
  The Secretary of State has ignored the Association of Optometrists, the British Medical Association's ophthalmic committee and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. He bases his entire argument on the survey that has just come into his hands. However, the hon. Member for Edgbaston made the forceful point that many of the questions asked in the survey were unlikely to elicit an accurate response because they depended on human memory rather than on factual information provided from the records of optometrists and opticians.
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the fact that the Secretary of State's NOP survey shows that there is a clear discrepancy. What he has failed to allude to is the scale of that discrepancy, which appears to be quite colossal. Perhaps

  663
  the Secretary of State, or the Minister of State who is to wind up the debate, will comment on it. According to paragraph 6.1 of the NOP survey:
  "The estimate of NHS sight tests derived from the NOP survey can be compared with data collected from FPCs and Health Boards. 1·058 million were paid for by FPCs in England and Wales and Health Boards in Scotland in the first quarter of 1990. Of these, 0·624 million were adults aged 16 or over; this represents 1·4 per cent. of the adult population. The first two surveys conducted by the NOP suggest that 4·5 per cent… of the adult population had an NHS sight test in the period."
  In other words, the NOP survey shows more than three times as many people saying that they remember having a sight test since Christmas than the Secretary of State's own figures suggest. Therefore, I query what value can be placed on the document.
  Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman ought to be given a knighthood. I very much welcome his intervention. The Secretary of State is uncharacteristically silent. I have read the speech that the hon. Gentleman made on the subject in a previous debate. I believe that he has touched on a pertinent point. Whether we shall receive a pertinent answer remains to be seen.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I had not realised that my interventions were so popular, which is why I remained silent. The explanation is contained in the report. Many people think that the sight test that they pay for is an NHS sight test. The survey is not reliable in terms of the figures that it publishes about how many people have had NHS or private eye tests. We are concerned with the total number of eye tests. As I said in my speech, one could knock off 50 per cent. for errors. We could find every reason that we liked for error, and we should still come up with a figure that showed no decline in the number of eye tests, compared with the expected trend.
  Mr. Churchill: But this is a 400 per cent. error.
  Mr. Kennedy: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, inflation and interest rates are going up, so why should not the margin of error here go up by a similar amount? That is a feature of the running of the country by this Government.
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston made a legitimate case, but the Secretary of State has not responded to it. He has produced a fail-safe survey. It does not purport to be fail-safe, but it is based on individual human memory as opposed to facts held on record by opticians. There can be no doubt which survey is more accurate.
  I would concede that simply to consult opticians, as we did in our survey, does not give as good a result as consulting a proper statistical blend of customers and opticians as it is reasonable to draw on customers' impressions as well. However, the input of opticians is critical to any set of findings, whatever proportion of those findings they represent.
  The simple truth is that the opticians provide the only reliable facts available. Statistics drawn from the public are bound to include impressions, whereas the opticians provide hard evidence. If the Secretary of State is seriously questioning the accuracy or veracity of the facts provided by opticians, as he did in his speech in reply to the hon.
  664
  Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), he is bound to be casting some aspertions on the opticians. There are no two ways about it, and he cannot get away from it.
  I adhere to the view that, whatever one may say about the various surveys that have been carried out, including our own, to base his entire argument, as the Secretary of State has done today, on one survey in preference to or in complete opposition to all the other surveys is surely bizarre and wrong-headed in the extreme.
  Given the Secretary of State's track record and the way he goes about things in the Department of Health, I suspect that he did that simply because it is the only survey so far that has given him a fig leaf against the warnings uttered to him by his own Back Benchers and from the Opposition. I suspect that, yet again, as he did with the nurses and the ambulance men in the past and as he continues to do with family doctors, he has now picked another group of professionals in the Health Service and offended and alienated them by the tenor of his remarks today. He will live to regret it, as preventive health regrets the decision to introduce these wrong-headed charges on 1 April 1989.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: I shall not detain the House for long, but I want to make it absolutely clear that I reject what has been said by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). I have always believed that it is right in principle to charge those who can afford it relatively small amounts of money at the periphery of the National Health Service. That policy was started not by the present Government nor the last Labour Government but by the post-war Labour Government. That Government recognised that it was important to raise additional funds which could not be sustained out of general taxation because of the bottomless pit with which the Health Service is sometimes faced, and successive Governments have followed that principle.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has courageously and correctly faced up to the fact that the Department of Health can raise an additional £70 million of expenditure for primary health care from people like me.
  I have been wearing glasses for the past two years. I came to the House in 1979, and at the age of 27 I had the good fortune of not needing to wear glasses. By pure coincidence in 1988 I was driving my car through Lincolnshire when I heard on my car radio that Lincolnshire police were planning to conduct spot sight tests for drivers. I was frightened and worried and decided to have my eyes tested. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State paid for me to have a free sight test, notwithstanding the fact that I cheerfully paid £98 for my glasses.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) mentioned various statistics. In 1988 an individual from the constituency of Brigg and Cleethorpes went to an optician in Pimlico for a free eye test. I have not had my eyes tested since; I was issued with these glasses two years ago and no doubt I shall receive a card from the optician inviting me back for a periodic eye test. I am a classic example of somebody who has no business to be receiving

  665
  taxpayers' money for an eye test. I went to have my eyes tested in 1988 and I have not had them tested since. That is why statistics in Durham are producing those results.
  Mr. Churchill: I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will appreciate that his free eye test was paid for not by the Secretary of State but by the taxpayer. While he and the House will accept that no one is arguing today that those on above average earnings, such as himself or the printers in Wapping and what is left of Fleet street, should get taxpayers' money to pay for their eye tests, would he regard it as reasonable and right that one of my constituents who is earning less than a quarter of average earnings should be required to pay the full cost of a sight test? I cannot accept that. That individual should be entitled to a free eye test.
  Mr. Brown: Plainly, my hon. Friend has not read the motion that we are debating. I am opposing a motion which
  "calls upon Her Majesty's Government to restore a free preventive service for eye examinations."
  In 1988, quite wrongly, the taxpayer—my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that—paid for me to benefit from such a service. So, with great respect to my hon. Friend, unless we amend it the motion is inviting us to do that and that is why I believe that it should be opposed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston argued wrongly for free eye tests for all pensioners. I know that my hon. Friend looks very youthful, but I believe that she would be entitled to such a free eye test. I know that one should not discuss an hon. Lady's age in the Chamber, but we all know from Vacher's when my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston was born. I am sure that she would be the first to acknowledge that she and many pensioners in the United Kingdom are on above average earnings and should not receive free eye tests.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I have given way already and I do not wish to detain the House as other hon. Members want to speak.
  The Government's proposals which were put into effect last year enable 20 million people, or nearly 40 per cent. of the population, to receive free eye tests. Those 20 million people consist of all children under 16, those on low incomes, the blind and partially sighted, students under 19 and people suffering from glaucoma. That is not unreasonable bearing in mind the fact that money is being released as a result of the peripheral charge which Opposition Members accepted, when they were in government and when they created the National Health Service, it was right and proper for the Health Service to raise from the taxpayer.
  A not too dissimilar argument is whether those of us who can afford to pay prescription charges should do so. I shudder to think of the "ceaseless cascade" of medicine that is pouring down British throats. The Opposition should remember who said that.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Bevan.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is nearly right. Because free medicine was available indiscriminately, that comment was made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in 1949, the great defender of the National Health Service.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It was Bevan.
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member recognised in 1949 that funds were distributed indiscriminately across the board to people who could afford to pay.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend is wrong. It was Bevan.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend says that it was Aneurin Bevan, but I have a quote from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Bevan was the Member for Ebbw Vale.
  Mr. Brown: No less a person than Aneurin Bevan made that statement. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the former Member for Ebbw Vale, who both served in the 1945 to 1950 Parliament, recognised that there was a case for having peripheral charges for those able to pay, just like many Members and people outside the Chamber.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brown: I would give way were it not for the fact that this is a short debate and I have promised to be brief.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Be a sport.
  Mr. Brown: I give way, briefly.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is it not significant that Aneurin Bevan, who was supposed to be the father of the Health Service, complained about the "ceaseless cascade"? He was the Member for Ebbw Vale.
  Mr. Brown: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. My hon. Friend and I would agree that that Labour Government established a principle followed by all successive Governments, notwithstanding the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) said, for three years the Labour Government abolished prescription charges, only to restore them in 1968 at a rate 25 per cent. higher. All Governments have recognised the principle of charging for those peripheral services, and I include eye tests, for the reason that I described.
  The Government have honoured their commitment in last year's debate. The fact that 40 per cent. of the population—20 million people—receive free eye tests shows that this is a properly targeted measure. The Government are right to ensure that an additional £70 million is available for the primary health care services. I shall have no hesitation in throwing out the Opposition's motion.
  5.52 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: What appals me most about the Government's attitude to health is that they have blatantly and unashamedly politicised pain and suffering. This is another deliberate policy that is designed to damage the National Health Service. The performance of the Secretary of State will find great favour with the Prime Minister, because it is business as usual, despite the massive amount of factual evidence that the ending of free eye examinations has led to a dramatic fall in the number of eye tests, with dangerous results for the health of millions of people.

  667
  I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that evidence is available if the Government choose to seek it—in the audited records of opticians to which ophthalmic committees have access and which community health councils could monitor. Means-tested benefits carry a stigma, as is shown by the low take-up. If the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State had an elderly relative on a low income who needed an eye test but was deterred because of cost or because he or she did not wish to fill in a lengthy form or take part in means-testing, and that person were in danger of developing glaucoma or a tumour that could be cured if found in time, they would have to explain that they were against any collective provision for individual need at the time of need and paid for through taxation, whatever the pain or suffering caused. They would have to say sorry but, as the amendment states,
  "those who can afford to pay for sight tests should do so".
  That would be their message, without any regard to a person's ability to pay and to choice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) talked about the dramatic fall in the number of people receiving eye tests. The Secretary of State said that there had been no fall-off in eye testing and that there was an opinion poll to prove it, yet he does not believe in the poll results. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could look at the audited records in every practice and collect the data if he wanted that information, but I suspect that he does not want it.
  Like my hon. Friends in their constituencies, I have been keeping an eye on the position in mine. I checked today with the local ophthalmic committee, the community health council and some local opticians who were worried, and I saw the latest survey which had been conducted by the ophthalmic committee, monitored and overseen by the CHC. The first survey, for the six months from April 1989 to October 1989, showed that the number of tests had fallen by 34 per cent. The second survey, from October 1989 to April 1990, showed that the number was still down by 32 per cent., which appears now to be the permanent level. That figure is the same as the one arrived at by the professor of statistics at Reading university. I would argue that that is a more realistic figure than the ones used by the Secretary of State.
  It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friends to hear that 32 per cent. is just an average; sometimes it is more than 40 per cent. in more deprived areas in my constituency. That is a fair measure of what is happening locally. Conservative Members should look at the surveys carried out in their constituencies and then argue in the House about the pathetic attempt by the Secretary of State to use the NOP survey. Despite all the facts, we are still subjected to the self-righteous ranting of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the self-righteousness shown in the amendment tabled by the Prime Minister. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister is deaf. They know exactly what is happening and that the 32 per cent. fall-off is nearer the truth than their figures.
  The hon. Member for Edgbaston made a point, which is worth repeating, about the costs that will result when people cotton on to the fact that they can have an eye test carried out free at an ophthalmic clinic. I asked about the local cost and the hon. Lady said that it would be between
  668
  £25 and £50, an average of £35 in my constituency, for referral by a general practitioner compared with £11·20 for referral by an optician.
  There is no legal argument for abolishing free eye tests. If people cotton on to going to hospitals for tests, it will cost the NHS a great deal of money. While preparing for this debate, I discovered that there is a seven-month waiting list at the ophthalmic clinic in my constituency. That is tragic. However, Ministers, and those who support the Government and their onslaught on the NHS, will not be found in those tragic queues because, like the Prime Minister, they can buy their way to the top.
  The current crisis in the National Health Service and the Government's policy on eye tests have been created deliberately because the Prime Minister loathes the NHS. The ending of free eye tests is part of the Prime Minister's determination to dismantle the whole structure of post-war social provision and end what she sees as the hated socialist ideal. She deliberately seeks to lower standards of patient care and to produce a two-tier system. That system exists now. If someone has some money and is okay financially, he can have a test and benefit from it. However, if someone is on a low income and worried about a budget or concerned about water bills for which there is no rebate, and the poll tax, he will lose out.
  I have a message for the Government from Mr. Bruce, who is the director-general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. He referred to people missing out on eye tests and the possible subsequent identification of medical conditions. He said:
  "Unnecessary blindness is not something to be proud of."
  I believe that political myopia is something to be downright ashamed of, and that is what the Government are suffering from with regard to eye testing.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. John Maples: If the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) believes that the Government are deliberately embarked on a policy of destroying the Health Service, she must consider why expenditure on the Health Service has risen by 40 per cent. in real terms under this Government while it fell in one year under the last Labour Government when they slashed hospital building programme capital allocations by 30 per cent. If we consider the statistics which show who has done what for the Health Service, there is no contest.
  The hon. Member for Halifax became bogged down in the statistical argument which, to some extent, has sidetracked our debate. We have moved away from the basic principles. We should all be suspicious about statistics because politicians have a predilection for picking the statistics that suit their arguments. I was surprised by the readiness with which the Opposition swallowed the propaganda from professional organisations about the Health Service reforms. They swallowed the British Medical Assocition's propaganda hook, line and sinker.
  We all remember the lawyers objecting to reforms in the legal profession and we viewed those objections with healthy scepticism. We said to ourselves, "The lawyers know a lot about it and they are worth listening to, but they are talking their book." It is amazing that the Opposition do not say the same thing about doctors and opticians. We need to know more about the survey of opticians because there might, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, be some

  669
  self-selection in the sample. If that is the case, the survey is biased in that it has answers from opticians whose business has fallen off over the past year.
  I have some evidence that I would like to adduce. I believe that a foolproof indication of whether there are problems with matters such as charges for eye tests is the constituency mail bag. I have received not one complaint about charges for eye or dental tests. If things are free, people are more likely to use them out of interest or from a need to feel secure. I suspect that many people probably had one eye test a year when tests were free while the general reckoning is that a test every two years is necessary. Many of those unnecessary tests have dropped out of the total.
  Another adjustment to the statistics arises from the fact that when a charge is to be introduced, many people rush in and have a test for free. A figure of 1 million has been used with regard to eye tests. However, the adjustment is not 1 million; it is 2 million. One million people who would have had a test in the year after charges were introduced had a test the year before. The adjustment to be made in the discrepancy in the figures is not 1 million, but 2 million. If that adjustment is made, the figures look more realistic. Having said that, it would be useful in the context of this debate to have accurate figures to show the results of the change in charges for eye tests.
  One of the basic principles is that we are talking about a large amount of money. Introducing the charge saves £90 million. To that we must add the £50 million which would be the cost for reintroducing free dental checks. That total of nearly £150 million a year is the cost of three district general hospitals. I cannot believe that any responsible Secretary of State for Health, were he Labour or Conservative, would choose free eye and dental checks instead of three new district general hospitals. I would not choose free tests and I cannot believe that any of my hon. Friends would either.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Is that the choice?
  Mr. Maples: Of course it is. If we reinstate free tests, the £150 million must come from somewhere.
  The only substantial argument against charges is that of deterrence. Do charges deter people from having tests? The Opposition constantly cause scares when charges are introduced. When the voucher scheme for spectacles was introduced in 1983, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), as usual, went over the top. He said:
  "The result for the public will be eye strain and headaches at best. At worst, it will be inability to see clearly so that they are at risk in their work, a hazard on the road or otherwise may injure themselves".—[Official Report, 20 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 306.]
  That was his prediction. However, the opticians' business did not fall off; instead, the price of spectacles fell and that is exactly what the Government predicted.
  We hear these scares from the Opposition time and again. Every time dental charges were raised over the past 10 years, the Opposition said the same thing, but there has been a steady increase in the courses of dental treatment. They have increased by 20 per cent. over the past 10 years. I suspect that each rise in charges brings a slight drop in the service partly because people defer treatment which they would otherwise have carried out immediately and partly because they have treatment before the charges are raised. However, after that the general trend picks up. Dentistry surveys have shown that the cost of the
  670
  treatment—we must remember that only the test was free—is the fourth most important factor. The most important factor is that people say to themselves that there is no need for a dental check; the second factor is pain; and the third is the difficulty of finding a good dentist. The cost was the fourth factor. We must consider whether costs are the deterrent that Opposition Members make them out to be in an attempt to stir up a scare.
  Mr. Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman know where the cheapest spectacles can be found now? They are to be found in markets all over the country. There are hundreds of thousands of spectacles on stalls. People try on the spectacles and try to read the book provided on the stall. That is how spectacles were sold in this country 50 years ago and that is what we are getting back to. That is where people who cannot afford eye tests are going to get something to suit their eyes.
  Mr. Maples: That is happening to a limited extent.
  Mr. Turner: It is a disgrace.
  Mr. Maples: Yes, and it certainly should not happen. To the extent that it is happening, it is limited and it happened when there were free eye tests as well.
  Mr. Turner: No.
  Mr. Maples: It certainly did. The argument is that it has happened since changes were made in the way that spectacles were paid for. There is no evidence that what the hon. Gentleman described has happened only since April last year.
  The logic of the argument about deterrence should extend beyond the test because only the test was free. One always had to pay a contribution towards dental work or for the spectacles that might or might not have been needed after a test. If the Opposition are to take their argument about deterrence to its logical extreme, the tests should be free as well, and the cost would become far more than £150 million.
  Let us suppose that the Opposition are right and that there is a deterrent. I shall refer to glaucoma later, because it is serious. Apart from that, what are the consequences? They are that people will walk round wearing the wrong glasses for slightly longer than they used to, or they will have toothache. They are not exactly life-threatening conditions, whereas the £150 million can be spent on alleviating real suffering. As always in politics and public spending, there is a trade-off.
  Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman is talking about hospital beds and putting people into hospital beds when they do not need to be there. They would not need to be in those beds for operations because they would have received preventive treatment. Why does the hon. Gentleman cast mean motives on professional people by suggesting that they are prducing false statistics on fewer eye tests? Why does he say that people had eye tests when they did not need them only because they were free? Why does not the hon. Gentleman take people on genuine trust and regard them as honest?
  Mr. Maples: I rely on the results of the NOP survey, which proved exactly the opposite to what the hon. Gentleman is trying to deduce. As for his point about

  671
  hospital beds being filled up with people who need hip operations because they cannot have eye tests, that is rubbish. The hon. Gentleman should analyse—
  Mr. Turner: I said eye operations.
  Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman did not. He said operations in general. The idea that free eye tests were somehow the early diagnosis of all sorts of acute hospital cases is the most awful rubbish.
  Dame Jill Knight: A moment or two ago, my hon. Friend said it was not serious to be wandering round wearing the wrong glasses. I assure my hon. Friend that if one is driving a car it is very serious to be wearing the wrong glasses.
  Mr. Maples: I do not think that anybody who owns a car will have any difficulty in coming up with £10 for an eye test.
  Who are the people who are being asked to pay the £10 or £12 and of what consequence is it to them? We know that the exemptions cover children, pregnant mothers and people on income support and family credit—about 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the population. The other 60 per cent. who are being asked to pay have had amazing increases in their take-home pay over the past 10 years. The cut-off for family credit is about three quarters of average earnings. Somebody on three quarters of average earnings has had an increase in his take-home pay of £2,084 over the past 10 years. If he were on average earnings, he would have had an increase of over £3,000 in his take-home pay, and, even on half average earnings, which is now £7,500 a year, he would have had an increase of £1,500 in take-home pay.
  All levels of earnings at which people might be asked to pay the £10 have had increases in take-home pay of over £1,500 in the past 10 years. In that context, it is palpable nonsense to suggest that £12 every other year is a significant item in a family budget. It cannot feature at all. We are talking about a cost of £6 a year to have an eye test every other year to somebody whose income has increased by at least £1,500 over that period. It is not unreasonable to ask people as they become better off to make some contribution at the margin to their health care. It basically affects only those whose household incomes have increased by more than £1,500 per year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) pointed out, the average family spends £10 a week on alcohol. We are suggesting that they should spend £10 every two years on an eye test.
  Glaucoma is more serious. Undoubtedly, eye tests show it up early in some cases, but the eye test was never a screening process for glaucoma. If it is thought as a matter of public policy that we should screen for glaucoma, we should do it some other way than through a random eye test, whether it is free or paid for. The Government have acknowleged that by making a special exemption for people who are more likely to have glaucoma or who are related to people who have it—there is a large hereditary element in it. To a substantial extent, that matter is taken care of.
  As I have already said, one third, or perhaps even 40 per cent., of the population do not have to pay for the eye test, and the other 60 per cent. have had such substantial
  672
  increases in income that the charge cannot be a deterrent that could lead to serious consequences. We are going through a time when people are able, willing and prepared to take greater responsibility for themselves and not to expect the state to do everything for them. As their real incomes rise, it is the policy of the Government, which I wholly applaud—it is one reason why I got into politics—that they should be left with more of their income in their pockets through less taxation and more of the responsibility for paying for things for themselves where they can. At the very best, it is patronising for the Opposition to suggest that they are not capable or responsible for making that decision and that they are likely to be deterred from taking care of their health by a charge that averages out at £6 a year.
  An interesting way of looking at that argument is that, in 1988, the year when the charges were debated and when the legislation was passed the Opposition objected to a 2p income tax cut in the Budget. They said that the money should have been spent on improving the Health Service. That cut in income tax is worth £180 a year to someone on average earnings. The charge for an eye test is £12 every other year. The Opposition suggested that those who would have preferred that additional £180 not to be given back to them but to be spent on the Health Service are so stupid, shortsighted or mean-minded that they will not spend £12 every two years, having had a £180 a year tax saving, on an eye test. It does not add up.
  If people are willing, as the Opposition argued at the time, for the money to be spent on the Health Service, surely they are willing to spend a fraction of that amount on one item of health care, which is obviously a sensible way to protect the health of their eyes. It is patronising and silly to suggest that people are not responsible for themselves. Clearly they can come up with £10 or £12 a year.
  The Government need no lectures from the Labour party on the funding and management of the Health Service. Over the past 10 years, the Government have spent £3 for every £1 that the Labour party spent on it—an increase in real terms of 40 per cent. That increase in real terms is £9 billion. We spend more than £40 a week for every family of four on the Health Service. There are thousands more doctors——
  Mr. Turner: It is not enough.
  Mr. Maples: It will never be enough if the service is free, in the sense that we will never be able to remove all the waiting lists. All that I can say is that it is an awful lot more than the previous Labour Government spent.
  We have the largest-ever hospital building programme. We treat more patients as in-patients, out-patients and day cases, and we need no lectures from the Opposition on the funding of the Health Service.
  It is interesting to look at the Opposition's policy review, which they euphemistically call "Looking to the Future". It seems to be a giant step back to the 1960s. There are no commitments to spend any additional money on health care. However, there is a commitment to
  "bring back free eye tests and dental checks."
  There is also a commitment to abolish competitive tendering. Those three things together will cost £200 million and will not deliver one iota of additional health care. They will not improve health care one little bit. If that £200 million were available, it would build four new district general hospitals every year. The Opposition are

  673
  saying that they would choose to spend it on removing those three things which are purely political dogma—they are not related to health care at all.
  If one extends the logic of the Opposition's argument to prescription charges, which they were going to remove at one time, and to providing free glasses and free dental care which, if the charge for a test is a deterrent, must equally be a deterrent, one is talking of a sum well in excess of £1 billion. That sum would add absolutely nothing to the quantity of health care delivered to the public. It is extraordinary that, in the Opposition's document, the future of the Health Service rates one page, half of which is taken up with community care. There are no commitments to additional spending apart from the ones that I have mentioned. Even the ones that are mentioned must be taken with a pinch of salt.
  In the public expenditure debate, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who has some responsibility for the Labour party's attitude to public spending, said:
  "What we are promising is an increase for pensioners and an increase in child benefit. Everything else that is regarded as a desirable aim is also listed, quite clearly and specifically, as something that we hope to do as resources allow."—[Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 179.]
  It is difficult to know whether the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has co-ordinated his policy with that of his hon. Friend. One assumes that he has, but there is a conflict between the commitments made in "Looking to the Future" and what the hon. Member for Derby, South said. The hon. Lady made her statement categorically and reiterated it twice in response to interventions from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. She said that that was all that the Labour party would commit itself to doing if it were to come into government.
  If what the hon. Lady said is correct, what the hon. Member for Livingston said about £200 million for abolishing competitive tendering and the charges for eye and dental check-ups is on the wish list. In other words, the Labour party is saying, "These are the things that we should like to do if resources allow." Well, we do that—if resources allow, we increase the resources that are given to the National Health Service, which is why we have been able to spend an additional £9 billion on it. One suspects that those things are not Labour party commitments, and that they are part of the letter to Santa Claus which the hon. Member for Livingston is puffing up the chimney with the smoke and which the hon. Member for Derby, South, who is sitting at the top, is tearing up unless its commitments refer to child benefit or pensions. I hope that I have the attention of the hon. Member for Livingston.
  When the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) replies to the debate, it will be interesting to hear whether those three items—abolishing competitive tendering and reintroducing free eye and dental check-ups—are absolute commitments on the part of the Labour party when it forms its next Government, and whether they override the equally categorical statement by the hon. Member for Derby, South in the public expenditure debate on 13 February.
  The Labour party seems to be trying to talk out of both sides of its mouth at the same time. On the one side, the Treasury spokesmen are trying to reassure the City, the markets, the press and the taxpayers that they are not trying to pick their pocket to a large extent to pay for a major public expenditure programme, while on the other
  674
  side the Labour party is trying to say to the voters, "Of course, we shall spend billions of pounds on transport, education and health." Of course, the only reason for ever electing a Labour Government is that they would raise more money in taxes and spend it on public services.
  However, the Labour party will be rumbled because taxpayers and consumers are exactly the same people and they will realise that the Labour party is delivering two totally different messages. One message says, "We shall spend a lot more money", and the other says, "We shall not spend any more money." It will be interesting to have that contradiction resolved. I repeat that taxpayers and consumers are the same people and they will rumble the con trick that the Labour party is trying to perpetrate on them.
  In conclusion, our changes seem a sensible way of ensuring an additional £90 million for the Health Service. If one adds in the dental checks, a total of £140 million is available to be spent on better and more constructive things and on alleviating real suffering and life-threatening conditions. The structure exempts vulnerable people from the charges. Those who are liable to the charges have had enormous increases in their take-home pay in the past 10 years. Those on half average incomes have received a minimum of £1,500. It is not unreasonable to ask those people to pay £12 every two years. The Labour party's opposition to the charges—just like its opposition to competitive tendering—is pure political dogma. Changing the system would not deliver one iota more health care. It makes absolutely no sense to reverse the change. It is right as a matter of principle to reduce people's taxes and to leave them with more money in their own pockets and more responsibility for taking care of themselves. On the whole, people behave responsibly and it is patronising to suggest that they do not.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). With every speech by a Conservative Member we seem to hear higher figures for the money that the Government have saved as a result of not having free tests. We have heard £70 million, £90 million and even £150 million being quoted. It has even been said that we could have three new general hospitals as a result of the savings. What utter nonsense. Even Ministers have said that the money that is saved will be spent on primary health care—and whoever heard of the building of three new general hospitals being part of any Government's primary health care budget?
  I also listened with great care to the Secretary of State. He said that the Government intend to give everyone the service that they require. However, he then spent half an hour telling us why the Government could not give everyone the service that they need. He also said that, even after the introduction of the changes, the Government were still paying for the tests of the third of the population who qualify for income support, and we know that the take-up of income support has been extremely low. Unfortunately, therefore, a number of people who would qualify for free tests if they applied for the income support, to which they are entitled, are not receiving free eye tests.
  We all agree that the average charge is between £12 and £15. Although many right hon. and hon. Members can no

  675
  doubt afford £12 or £15, many people cannot. Unfortunately, the people who will be hit hardest are the most vulnerable in our society.
  The decision to abolish free eye tests disproportionately affects the elderly. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said that many elderly people can afford to pay for their eye tests and referred to the average income of elderly people. However, the average income of elderly people is skewed by the fact that the income of the top one fifth accounts for a disproportionate amount of the income of all elderly people. The average pensioner's income is less than £100 per week—it is actually £98 per week, but four fifths of elderly people receive substantially less than that. They are therefore hit by charges for eye tests. We know that the cost of the elderly to the Health Service is substantially more than the cost of those who are not of pensionable age. We also know that 78 per cent. of elderly people between the ages of 78 and 85 suffer from severe eye conditions, yet it is precisely that category of vulnerable people that the Government are refusing to assist. That is deplorable.
  There is no doubt in my mind—if they were honest, there would be no doubt in the minds of Conservative Members either—that substantially fewer people are now attending for eye tests than was the case before 1 April 1989. We all know that evidence from our constituencies. There is also the anecdotal evidence that we hear when speaking to our friends, colleagues and families. If the Government are seeking to rely on one set of statistics to justify their position, and if they refuse to accept any statistics that suggest an opposite point of view, they are a blinkered Government who are refusing to look at all the evidence.
  The Secretary of State is a lawyer and, as such, he must look at both sides of the argument. However, he refuses to do so because the evidence does not fit the Government's position. The right hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to accept that anybody who can produce statistics to support a contrary point of view can have a valid argument. In those circumstances, I believe that the survey that the Government have produced is fundamentally flawed. The Government must look at the hard evidence that is produced by the practitioners, rather than relying on people's memories.
  I shall conclude, as other hon. Members wish to speak. It is short sighted of the Government to dispense with free eye tests because, as we have heard in many valuable speeches, eye tests can detect other conditions. Ensuring that people have free eye tests actually saves money. Therefore, even if the Government are not prepared tonight to introduce free eye tests for everybody, I urge them to ensure that pensioners are entitled to free eye tests from this day forward.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: What an extraordinary speech we have heard from the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). Despite the fact that he sits on the Conservative side, I always considered him to be a reasonable person. How extraordinary that he should tell us that he received no representations whatever from his
  676
  constituents protesting against the imposition of charges for eye tests. I advise him to keep his speech well hidden from his constituents in Lewisham, West.
  Even before charges were introduced, some constituents of mine in Leicester felt that charges would have a detrimental effect on their health. On 31 October 1988 a group of pensioners went to Downing street and presented the Prime Minister with a gift. It was an unusual gift—a large pair of wooden spectacles and a large tooth. I do not know whether either of the items fitted the Prime Minister, but they were intended as a symbol of the effect that charges would have on people in my constituency. My constituents predicted over one and a half years ago that fewer people would have eye tests, and that is exactly what has happened.
  Conservative Members are keen to give us facts and figures about the amount of money that has been spent on the Health Service. I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said in her eloquent speech. I, too, believe that the facts are clear. She gave us facts on the national position and spoke of a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of eye tests. The figure for Leicestershire is lower but just as stark. According to the Leicestershire local optical committee, there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in the number of eye tests carried out on people in the county of Leicestershire. Hundreds of thousands of people—the hon. Lady said millions—nationally have serious eye disorders which will go undetected as a result of the introduction of charges for eye tests.
  Contrary to what we were told by Conservative Members, people in my constituency were angry at the introduction of charges for eye tests. There was huge opposition to it. One person who worked hard campaigning against the charges in my constituency was Mr. Edwards who lives at 67 Marston road, Leicester. He was an optician. Shortly after the charges were introduced it was discovered that he had cancer and that it was terminal. Despite his illness, he campaigned vigorously in Leicester against the charges.
  Mr. Edwards presented me with a petition signed by 105 people who opposed the scheme. That was all the names that he had time to collect in the limited time available before he died. I presented that petition to Parliament and shortly afterwards Mr. Edwards went into hospital and died there. I hope that that petition was a suitable memorial to the work that he did on behalf of local people to ensure that the voice of local people was raised against charges for eye tests.
  Retinitis pigmentosa is an eye disease which affects a fair number of people in Britain. I have been told that one person in every 4,000 has the potential of developing the disease. A Leicester local councillor, Mary Draycott, members of whose family suffer from the disease, brought to my attention the fact that those who suffer from the disease are not exempt from charges for eye tests. Pressure on local doctors has increased greatly since the introduction of charges for eye tests simply because in the past relatives of those who suffer from retinitis pigmentosa were entitled to a free test. They can no longer have a free test. First, they must go to their general practitioner, who must refer them to a hospital doctor, who, in turn, must refer them to an optician for a free eye test. I wrote to a Minister—not the Minister who is at the Dispatch Box but

  677
  a previous Minister—about that matter urging her to initiate a scheme to exempt such people from paying for eye tests. Unfortunately, her response was negative.
  I received a letter from a Mr. Clinton Smith who is the honorary secretary of the Leicestershire local optical committee. He wrote to me on 11 April 1989. In opposing the charges introduced by the regulations, he contrasted the view expressed by the Government about the tests with the way in which people operate according to the family doctor service. He said:
  "It is like suggesting that people can accurately decide for themselves what treatment they need from a family doctor and, although the doctor is trained and able to assist with the best possible advice in their interest, they are encouraged for commercial reasons to risk their health and happiness, and possibly their life, by demanding only an inferior part of the service should be given."
  That is what we are discussing today. An inferior service is being provided because of the introduction of charges for eye tests.
  Opposition Members are right to draw attention to the whole range of cuts in the National Health Service. One must see charges for eye tests in the context of the cuts affecting our local health services. The hon. Member for Edgbaston wanted to know where it would all end. I can tell her. It will end in the same way as it has ended in America—in a privatised Health Service. I visited America recently and I know that other hon. Members from both sides of the House have done so, too. When I was there it cost £25 to see a doctor. That is exactly what is intended by introducing charges for eye tests. We shall have a more and more privatised Health Service which we regarded as free at the points of entry and of need.
  In my constituency and across the county of Leicestershire cuts have bitten into the local Health Service. Hon. Members from both sides of the House recently had a meeting with the Secretary of State about charges for tests and cuts in the Health Service. It was like communicating with a brick wall. If any hon. Members were thinking of seeing the Health Secretary to lobby on behalf of their health authorities, they should not bother simply because the Secretary of State is not interested in providing any assistance either to Labour or Conservative Members.
  I shall finish by quoting from a letter that I received on the day of the Third Reading of the Health and Medicines Bill on 1 November 1988. A student came all the way from Leicester and handed me a letter which was as relevant now as it was then. She urged me to vote against the imposition of charges for tests. She said:
  "You may be able to eat with false teeth, walk with false legs but you cannot see with a false eye."
  That is what we are saying to the Government. We urge them to put away their false eyes and consider the position in a positive and constructive way. We hear a great deal these days about reviewing the poll tax because of enormous opposition to it. I advise Conservative Members that now is the time to review charges for eye tests and abolish them.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I have an obvious interest to declare in that I have worn spectacles since I was 13. Since then, I have seen the eye test develop from a relatively unsophisticated process to the detailed test that is provided now. The last time that I went to the optician to have my eyes tested—last year—it took about 40
  678
  minutes to go through all the electronic and other tests, including blowing air into the eye to detect glaucoma. When one visits the optician, as I do every year, one is always faced with a charge.
  I remember that when eye tests were free the cost of spectacles was amazing. At the age of 19 I paid about £70 for a pair of spectacles. When I went to buy spectacles last year the cost for certain pairs was as high as £200 or £300. However, since the introduction of greater competition in the supply of spectacles brought about by the Government, it has become possible for people to buy spectacles for as little as £25. Taken with the cost of the test, which is only £10 or £12—a reasonable charge for 40 minutes' work—the total charge is reasonable. It is certainly within the reach of many people in Britain to have their eyes tested once a year or once every two years.
  When the reforms were first suggested last year I was one of the most sceptical Conservative Members. I went to see the Minister privately to discuss whether they were necessary. I assure the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that I for one have no plans for the privatisation of the Health Service. I can tell the rest of the House that many Conservative Members would fight to the death rather than see that happen. Many, if not all, of us recognise the great value of the NHS. It will long remain so.
  I looked up the history of the NHS charges to see what the precedents were for this form of charge and found that they were first introduced by the Labour Government who set up the NHS. I looked further and found that when the then right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, Mr. Bevan, was Minister for Health, he said that charges in the National Health Service were "not a tax" on the Health Service, but "a readjustment within it". This is just another series of readjustments which were first brought about by the Labour Government.
  Last week I returned from the Soviet Union. In that socialist Nirvana, which many Labour Members undoubtedly aspire to establish here, there are Health Service charges for a whole range of items, such as medicines, prescriptions and eye tests.
  After careful consideration, I believe that there is much to be said for what the Government are doing. They are releasing a great deal of money for investment elsewhere in the service and I know that the Minister is monitoring the matter all the time.
  6.41 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We have had a brief and, at times, heated debate on a subject which is of great concern and importance to many.
  Frankly, Labour Members cannot have it both ways. Many whinged and groaned about the supposed demise of optical services, questioned our commitment to going ahead with the survey and pressed us for the results. We have undertaken an independent survey and made the results available in full. There is no conspiracy or concealment. The facts speak for themselves. Once again, the doom and gloom mongers have been seen in their true colours. The growth of the uptake of sight tests that took place through the 1980s is continuing.
  At a time of rising prosperity—after all, the average family has seen an increase in living standards of 34 per cent. over the past 10 years—those who can do so should pay for their sight test. All will agree that the vulnerable,

  679
  the frail and the needy should have free sight tests. That is why children, students, people on low incomes, the blind, the partially sighted, diabetics and those with glaucoma and their older relatives are eligible for free tests.
  Reference has been made to several surveys produced recently, each showing a fall in sight test demand since the introduction of charges. The plain fact is that most surveys have been commissioned either directly or indirectly by the profession or those with a special interest. There is no doubt that extensive pre-publicity about charges encouraged many people to bring forward their appointments to avoid the new arrangements. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that some opticians even stayed open until midnight to beat the April 1989 deadline.
  We estimate that in the 15 months between 1987 and April 1989 about 1·8 million more sight tests were carried out over and above what would normally have been expected. That is a revised figure of an earlier estimate and relates to all of Great Britain. It takes account of the large number of sight tests conducted before 1 April 1989, but which were paid for later.
  Hon. Members will be aware that during the passage of the Health and Medicines Bill the Government undertook to monitor the effects of the new system. We have met that undertaking in full. We commissioned the independent market research company, National Opinion Poll, to survey the number of NHS and private sight tests carried out in the first quarter of 1990. As my right hon. and learned Friend made clear, we have acted swiftly to make that information available to the House today.
  I want to make it clear, however, that we have in no way sought to conceal the fact that NOP, in undertaking the survey, made a minor error. It altered the wording in the later weeks of the survey. That does not affect the number of tests undertaken, but we are concerned that it affects the interpretation given about whether or not the test was private or on the NHS. This is spelt out fully in the documents without any attempt at concealment. Indeed, NOP takes full responsibility for that error.
  The NOP report concludes that an estimated 4·5 million adults—a total of 5 million people if children are included—received a sight test in the first three months of 1990. That compares with 4.4 million in the same quarter of 1989.
  As I have made clear, there is no disagreement that the proposed changes resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of those seeking tests. That is why to establish an underlying pattern we need to look at the 1987 figures. In assessing the report we projected forward the expected uptake on the basis of the upward trend established during the decade. If consumers are seeking eye tests at the same rate as that established trend, we would now expect 3·5 million to have come forward in the first quarter of 1990.
  We recognise and, again, make it clear in the comments on the report that surveys of this kind encourage over-estimation by the interviewee. Our independent survey, even when generous allowance is made for possible over-reporting, suggests that there were an estimated 4·1 million sight tests in the first quarter of 1990–600,000 more than the trends would reasonably suggest. Even if we assumed a 50 per cent. rate of over-reporting, there would be more tests that in 1987. Therefore, the survey provides
  680
  firm evidence, which is endorsed by many of the reports available in the optical press, that the market is again on the upturn.
  The hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) referred to the Economists Advisory Group. We have never said that our survey is the only one to be believed. Indeed, paragraph 8 of our report suggests that the true figure may be somewhere between the NOP figure and that in the most recent EAG reports.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who is a champion of this subject and who is well known and respected in this House, made several important points. Her comment, and that of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), that patients are being referred to hospitals to obtain an eye test has not been borne out in evidence. I cannot believe that practitioners would follow such a course of action.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am afraid that I have little time.
  Mr. Dalyell rose
  Mrs. Bottomley: Pensioners have never been automatically exempted from optical charges on the grounds of age rather than income.
  We heard excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). We are confident that eyesight tests are on a stable course. We take seriously the importance of providing a Health Service with a proper emphasis on primary health care and on eye tests. Only recently we made possible domiciliary visits so that pensioners who cannot leave their homes can now receive an NHS sight test at home. That started on 1 June. It is a further recognition of our desire to target resources on those who are vulnerable and to make sure that they can benefit from a test.
  Similarly, in April this year when the Government increased the money spent on the value of optical vouchers, we targeted those in greatest need. We redefined voucher band A so that more patients would fall into the higher group and receive more help.
  Many hon. Members have spoken about the importance of prevention, and the need for people to understand that their eyes must be cared for and protected. Hon. Members will be aware that, with the new GP contracts, prevention and health promotion are fundamental concepts. Those aged over 75 will receive regular visits and health checks, and sensory perceptions will be part of that assessment: vision will of course be checked. The Government intend to collaborate with GPs to ensure that they have all the relevant information to ensure that their patients receive the care that they need.
  I hope that the Government have laid to rest the myths about the take-up of eye tests. We are at the beginning of a new campaign to draw to people's attention the importance of looking after their eyes, and we hope to put the disagreements of the past behind us and work with the profession on a further campaign in the autumn.
  An eye test costs less than an MOT, about the same as a haircut—or perhaps two if one shops around—and about the same as reading The Sun or The Daily Mirror one day a week for a year. Free NHS sight tests are

  681
  available to one in three of the population. We are confident that our policies of providing health care for those who need it, and ensuring that we have a preventive Health Service, are well and truly vindicated. I urge the House to reject the motion.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I am saddened by the cheap and dismissive way in which the Minister ended her remarks. Occasionally, when debating the Government's health policies, we succeed in detecting some twisted logic or some vestige of reasoning. However, today's debate has confirmed yet again that there is no logic or sense—or any redeeming feature—in the imposition of eye-test charges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made clear at the beginning of the debate, there is overwhelming evidence that the Government's policy has proved every bit as devastating as we predicted in April 1989.
  Today the Secretary of State attempted to bluff his way out of another disaster. His defence was based on a breathtaking dependence on a single opinion poll; and, by definition, an opinion poll reflects opinions rather than facts. His figures depend on retrospective analysis—which is not an accurate or a dependable method of dealing with this type of question—and on gratuitous insults aimed at an entire profession and at people who have genuinely tried to get at the truth. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) eloquently blasted him out of the water on that point.
  The Secretary of State's figures fly in the face of all other available evidence. They were produced in a press release today in a desperate attempt to minimise the effect of this debate. He mentioned them reluctantly at the tail end of his speech, only after I challenged him to do so; they are no substitute for the proper figures and objective research that he and his colleagues have refused to produce over the past 15 months.
  The Minister for Health added nothing except fine sentiments, which are not reflected in the actions of the Government and depend on the same flawed source. However, she contradicted the Secretary of State by acknowledging the validity of other evidence. She tried to re-announce a development implemented on 1 June.
  The case is simple. Many people have been deterred by the charges. People are suffering, and some will go blind through serious eye conditions remaining undetected. Businesses are having to close because of the downturn in tests. Even those who are entitled to free tests are being deterred by the system that the Government have introduced.
  This is not, as some Conservative Members try to suggest, a peripheral service for which a charge is appropriate: others, such as the hon. Member for Edgbaston, understand that. However, those who took and did not critically examine the brief from Conservative central office clearly do not understand. In today's debate, and over recent months, the ministerial response has been convoluted and the Government have tried to spread doubt and confusion. They have tried to say that we do not know what is happening. We need only read the blocking answers of the Minister for Health during recent months to recognise her single-minded determination not to know what is going on.
  682
  The Minister's colleague in another place, Baroness Hooper, was equally unhelpful, but rather more confident. When she was asked on 2 May about people entitled to free eye tests, she stated categorically:
  "There is no change in the uptake of eye tests in that proportion of the population."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 May 1990; Vol. 518, c. 1039.]
  Funnily enough, she did not have the benefit of the information that the Minister is re-using today. She is wrong.
  The Minister has managed to cast a cloak of darkness and opinion over the English figures, but the figures in Wales were given to me in a parliamentary reply on 8 May. In the six months from 1 April 1989, the numbers almost halved, from 330,000 to 170,000—a truly devastating drop. The Welsh Health Minister tried to say that it might be due to more people's taking private tests, but that is not true: the House has had the facts. An independent survey by the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians shows a drop of 36 per cent. The other figures referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston show the extent of the downturn across the country. Against that, the Government's own investigations offer no independent or substantial evidence for their case.
  The Government say that there was bound to be a drop in the first couple of months after the charges were brought in. In April 1989, the Secretary of State for Scotland tried to suggest that a downturn after 1 April could be explained by people's success in rushing to beat the deadline. Apart from the curious logic of that, if charges will not deter, why should the lack of a charge and the imminence of an imposition cause an upturn? The history of events show that he was wrong. An increase of some 6·3 per cent. in the number of tests before 1 April hardly accounts for the drop of 36 per cent. recorded independently by the FODO, and certainly does nothing to balance the 49 per cent. drop in free tests reported by the Welsh Office.
  The fact is that fewer people are having tests. Most serious of all is the evidence from Michael Bateman, the chairman of the FODO, who said:
  "Since the introduction of the charges there has been an overall drop in the number of people going for eye checks, even amongst those who are still entitled to a free sight test under the NHS such as those on low incomes, diabetics, and relatives of glaucoma sufferers whose own sight could be at risk."
  The Government's third attempt to confuse us is the suggestion that the figures produced by optometrists arid independent sources may be inaccurate. There is overwhelming evidence that they are accurate. Opposition Members have asked questions—not dependent on those surveys—all round the country, and the evidence has mounted each time we have asked. Let us take referrals of new ophthalmology outpatients. The Welsh figures show a downturn late last year—just when one would expect reduced detection to follow the reduction in the number of eye tests—before the major increase in serious cases of which we are now hearing. In Pembrokeshire, for instance, there was a drop from 424 to 296.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett)—who intervened briefly at the beginning of the debate, although he is not here now—may like to know that Mr. Nick Ainger, who will join us on the Labour Benches after the next general election, rang me last night to tell me the views of opticians in his area. One optician told of an elderly lady who went to see him yesterday. She had not had an eye test since 1976; she was blind in one eye and

  683
  losing sight in another. She said that she had been reluctant to come in because of the cost of spectacles, as she is not on income supplement. How many like her have still not reached the point of desperation when they cast aside their financial worries and take a test?
  That optician reported a downturn of nearly 25 per cent. since last April. He believes that the Government should give free eye tests to all retired people now. Another optician in Pembroke dock says that pensioners who are not on income support are failing to turn up for appointments because of the charges. The same is true of unemployed people who are not on income support—perhaps because a member of the family is working—but whose family financial problems are nevertheless acute.
  The Secretary of State claimed earlier that we still pay for one third of the population. He is wrong: one third may be eligible, but they may also be deterred. In Holyhead, near where I was born, an optician confirmed yesterday that he has experienced a downturn of 40 per cent. An independent sample undertaken by HTV Wales showed a drop of 47·5 per cent. in Carmarthen and a drop of 39·8 per cent. in one of the most deprived areas of the country, the Cynon Valley. However, the problems are not limited to poorer areas: similar figures were produced by an independent survey by the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster family practitioner committee.
  After I had illustrated the situation in Wales I received a letter that graphically illustrates what charging means—it is not just about figures. An optician passed to me a letter that he had received from the father of a 19-year-old student who was not exempt from the eyesight charges. The optician told me that she therefore had to pay, which fortunately she could, but that others would be deterred. The letter reads:
  "Dear Sir,
  On Thursday 22nd February at 12.30 pm my daughter had an appointment to see the optician to have her eyes tested. He noticed that there was something wrong at the back of her eye and told her to go to the doctor. This she did, and was admitted to hospital on the same day and was operated on a few days later for the removal of a brain tumour. I should like to thank the optician for his prompt action—he probably saved my daughter's life."
  I am sure that we would all like to thank the professional opticians who detect such conditions. They deserve more respect than was shown to them by the Secretary of State today. I am told that such cases are far from unusual. Far better than thanks would be an announcement from the Minister that the dogmatic experiment of charging for eye tests has proved a disaster and that that dogmatic charging will be abandoned forthwith.
  You, Mr. Speaker, will know the prayer:
  "Grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, the courage to change things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
  The Government have the power to make the necessary change and the Prime Minister should have the wisdom to revert to the decision not to go ahead with the charges which she justified in a letter of 23 June 1980, saying that it was
  "in reponse to strong representations that such a charge, in a service which has a preventative function, would be wrong in principle and could deter patients from seeking professional advice"
  684
  Those comments apply as strongly today as they did at any other time, but this time she and her Government have pressed ahead against all available advice and evidence. This time the charge has been brought in and that charge has now deterred—it will go on deterring. It remains wrong in principle and the Government should remove eye test charges now.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 275.

  Division No. 224]

  [7.01 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fatchett, Derek

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Allen, Graham

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Alton, David

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Anderson, Donald

  Fisher, Mark

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Derek

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Fraser, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Beckett, Margaret

  Galbraith, Sam

  Beggs, Roy

  Galloway, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  George, Bruce

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gordon, Mildred

  Blair, Tony

  Gould, Bryan

  Boateng, Paul

  Graham, Thomas

  Boyes, Roland

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Buckley, George J.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cartwright, John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ingram, Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Janner, Greville

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cousins, Jim

  Kilfedder, James

  Crowther, Stan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cryer, Bob

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cummings, John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lewis, Terry

  Darling, Alistair

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Livsey, Richard

  Dewar, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dobson, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Doran, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Douglas, Dick

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dover, Den

  McCartney, Ian

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Eadie, Alexander

  McKelvey, William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Maclennan, Robert

  685

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Salmond, Alex

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Sillars, Jim

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Snape, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morley, Elliot

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Straw, Jack

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Trimble, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Turner, Dennis

  Nellist, Dave

  Vaz, Keith

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  O'Brien, William

  Wallace, James

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Patchett, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Pendry, Tom

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wilson, Brian

  Radice, Giles

  Winnick, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, Dr John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Richardson, Jo

  Robertson, George

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mr. Martyn Jones and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Rogers, Allan

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Alexander, Richard

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Amos, Alan

  Butterfill, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ashby, David

  Cash, William

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Chope, Christopher

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Colvin, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Conway, Derek

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Benyon, W.

  Couchman, James

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Critchley, Julian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowis, John

  Dicks, Terry

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dunn, Bob

  Brazier, Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Evennett, David

  686

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mans, Keith

  Forth, Eric

  Maples, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Marlow, Tony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Franks, Cecil

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Freeman, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  French, Douglas

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gale, Roger

  Mellor, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Gill, Christopher

  Mills, Iain

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gorst, John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Gow, Ian

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gregory, Conal

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Ground, Patrick

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Harris, David

  Page, Richard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Hayward, Robert

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Pawsey, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Portillo, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Riddick, Graham

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rost, Peter

  Irvine, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jack, Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Janman, Tim

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knowles, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Ian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speller, Tony

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Squire, Robin

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lightbown, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lilley, Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  687

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sumberg, David

  Walden, George

  Summerson, Hugo

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Waller, Gary

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilshire, David

  Thorne, Neil

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wood, Timothy

  Thurnham, Peter

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Yeo, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tredinnick, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tony Durant.

  Viggers, Peter

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House supports the Government in its view that those who can afford to pay for sight tests should do so and that the money which was previously spent by the National Health Service on free sight tests for those who could afford to pay is better spent in other ways in improving health care; believes that this will not lead to the nation's health or sight being put at risk nor deter those from seeking sight tests who need them; and fully supports the Government's policy that sight tests paid for by the National Health Service should continue to be available to those on low income, children and those most at risk of blindness from diabetes and glaucoma.

Welfare of Children
7.16 pm
Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the damage to children resulting from eleven years of Conservative governments, whose pursuit of socially divisive policies has seriously undermined the domestic security and future prospects of millions of children; calls on the Government fully to acknowledge its responsibilities towards all children through a fundamental re-assessment of service provision to children by recognising the need for substantially increased levels of co-ordination at both national and local government level; further requires the Government to facilitate the national collation and interpretation of information about children through the establishment of information-gathering mechanisms and continued support for existing systems; and urges the Government to bring before this House a timetable for ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as a sign of its commitment to improving the welfare of children, both within the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Miss Lestor: In setting what I hope will be the scene of this debate on children, I should like the House to cast its mind back to 1975 when the Prime Minister said in a speech in New York:
"Let our children grow tall, and some grow taller than others if they have it in them to do so. Opportunity means nothing, unless it includes the right to be unequal."
We little thought then that this "right" to inequality would be enshrined in law as a result of policy decisions taken by successive Conservative Governments in the past decade.
We have recently been subjected to many fine words, albeit dangerously oversimplifying the issues affecting children. I urge the House not to pay too much attention to what the Government say, but to look at what they have done, because there is a substantial, if predictable, gap between the myth of a caring Government and the reality experienced by many of our children.
The Tory party is fond of claiming to be the party of the family, yet it is the same party which, during a decade of government, has taken policy decisions after policy decisions which have divided families and not supported them. I shall give a few brief examples, starting with unemployment. The Conservative Government deliberately engineered appallingly high unemployment, thus throwing millions into dependency on state benefits. A generation of Thatcher's children have gone from childhood to adulthood without experience of their parents being in work and without any job prospects of their own.
Do hon. Members remember the saying, "On your bike"? What was that advice meant to achieve? It meant a parent, more often than not a father, being absent from home for long periods actively seeking work in other parts of the United Kingdom—a stranger to his children and subjecting his marriage to intolerable strains.
When do the Government intend to sort out the tangible contradictions in their approach to families and members of those families? There is an increasing tendency in Government circles to browbeat some members of the family to stay put at all costs. For example, 16 to 18-year-olds are supposed to stay with their families or face unacceptable levels of financial hardship, making it virtually impossible for them to lead an independent life at a decent level. If their parents are unemployed, they can no

689
longer, thanks to Government action, claim these young people as dependants. If such young people are not on a youth training scheme, they will not get any benefit.
Younger children running away from home are dubbed dreamers who are chasing the bright city lights, but many of them are running away from shocking domestic pressure, overcrowding, violence, sexual abuse and other problems. Many of these children are throwaways, not runaways. Only recently the Prime Minister expressed horror at the idea that we might be in danger of rearing a generation of creche children. She told us that women with young children should stay at home and raise their family. It would be nice if most women had that choice. The Prime Minister had that choice and she took it.
However, child benefit has been frozen since 1987, and there were hints in the press over the weekend that it is likely to remain at that level. In many areas, including Conservative-controlled authorities, mothers are finding that child benefit, their only directly paid benefit, barely pays their monthly poll tax bill.
Ministers other than the Prime Minister have expended much energy and effort trying to persuade women to return to work to meet the needs of industry. The Government should get together to decide what they want. If women are to be encouraged to return to work, I shall support that, as someone who was a working mother when the children were young.
It is wrong for us to rely on workplace nurseries for child care. Child care needs to be child centred, and it should take into account the needs of children. If we rely on child care for working mothers, what will happen when the country decides that it no longer needs those mothers in the work force, as it has done in the past? If that happens, child care will disappear, as it did at the end of the second world war. Children are caught in the middle of Government confusion. Have they benefited from the decade of supposedly unprecedented prosperity or has the economic miracle passed them by?
The Prime Minister has said that the Victorian era had much to commend it. We can see what it was like, for some of it has returned with a vengeance. For a minority of our children there are slum dwellings, child working and an increase in social inequalities. The Children's Society says that 98,000 children cease to sleep at home on any one night. Of course, many of these children turn up unharmed, but many do not. Government information—what happened to the children who ran away from home and why they did so—is scant. That is not my view alone. Since taking on the portfolio of Labour's spokesperson for children—it is not a soft option as one or two members of the press have suggested—I have had intensive consultations with voluntary organisations, professional bodies and individuals who are actively involved in caring for children. The same picture emerges. There is a clear and increasing tendency for the Government to rely on the voluntary sector to pick up the pieces, the damaged children for whom they and society—I know that "society" is not the Prime Minister's favourite word—are responsible. Any Government who are serious about taking on that responsibility must begin with a thorough understanding of the problem, and that means national information gathering.
The House may find it significant that many of the statistics that I shall use have come from non-Government sources. I pay tribute to the Children's Society, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Save
690
the Children Fund, the National Children's Home, the National Children's Bureau, Barnardos, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Health Visitors Association and many other organisations for filling the vital information gap.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Lestor: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not intend to give way for long. We rarely debate these issues and I do not have much time.
Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has mentioned some eminent and worthy charities, all of which do an excellent job. That job, even by their own admission, has been helped by the Government's generous tax arrangements for charitable giving. It is the charities which deal with the problem and which know best how to deal with it, and we fully support them.
Miss Lestor: When I have asked Ministers for information and statistics on missing children, children who are sleeping out and truancy, I have been told that the Government do not collect such statistics or I have been referred to one of the agencies. Surely hon. Members have the right to receive Government information about what is going on.
I shall draw attention to a striking exception to the rule which I have just enunciated. There is a piece of Government-funded research that is proving indispensable for those who are genuinely concerned about the health and welfare of the younger generation. I refer to the long-term study of the health of primary schoolchildren, which was set up after the Prime Minister, in a previous guise, abolished free school milk. The nationwide study of 10,000 children is being carried out by St. Thomas's hospital within the medical sector. It has produced valuable information on children's height, weight and general health. I am advised that, although it is regarded worldwide as a model of its kind, there is the threat of withdrawal of funding next April, despite the fact that the study is revealing what has happened to underprivileged groups in society. It seems that the trend in the 1970s towards more equal birth rates across the social spectrum is now, after 10 years of Conservative government, in reverse. Surely that could not be a cause for the Department of Health to get cold feet. I ask for an assurance from the Minister for Health that the rumour to which I have referred has no foundation and that the research will continue.
I have no doubt that the Minister will wish to assure the House also that the Government are doing all that they can to achieve higher welfare standards for our children. I am sure that the hon. Lady will say that the Government have spent X million pounds on this and a further Y million pounds on that, but their policy is obviously not working.
The Child Poverty Action Group demonstrated recently that millions of people, including children, are still getting a poor deal from the rich society and that the famous trickle-down theory of economic growth working over the long term is irrelevant to the needs of children now. Our children cannot wait.
When we get a significant and potentially powerful tool of legislation that can be used to help children who are in need, such as the Children Act 1989—I am pleased that the Government refer to the Act in their amendment—there

691
are difficulties when it comes to implementation. It was said that the Act would lead to an improvement in court hearings, but we did not get family courts, although we fought hard to secure them. The need for such courts was agreed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Act is in danger of being sabotaged by the Government's refusal to provide adequate extra resources to help local authorities to implement it. According to a survey conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, local government will have to find as much as £150 million a year to implement the Act. What is the use of raising hopes and expectations as a result of our knowledge of the needs of children—that knowledge forced the Government to introduce the Act—if we are not to give local authorities the money to implement it? In these days of poll tax and capped councils, where is local government to find the necessary finance to put much-needed legislation into practice? The local authority within my constituency tells me that it will cost it £450,000 a year to implement the Act. Will the authority be capped if it increases the poll tax to pay for implementation? That is what the Government are saying. High spending are dirty words only if the money is squandered. If money is well spent on services that are needed, and the Children Act has shown a need, it becomes indispensable.
It is especially relevant that we are debating the welfare of children during National Sleep-out Week, which is designed to highlight the plight of people, including many young people and children, who are forced to sleep rough on the streets or in bus shelters, alleyways or cardboard boxes. The plight of homeless young people distresses us all. It is a visible sign of our failure to deal with a range of social and domestic problems that give many youngsters no choice but to leave home or local authority care. Many of these youngsters—a few as young as nine or 10 years—find temporary shelter courtesy of the voluntary organisations. The Centrepoint refuge found a doubling of the number of young people sleeping rough between 1987 and 1989 and suggests that the main cause is the absence of cheap accommodation and the young people's unwillingness, often because of fear, to return to the place from which they came. Most sinister is the finding of a group that is campaigning for the end of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It draws attention to an increase of more than 230 per cent. in arrests under the Act of young people who are sleeping on the streets.
That legislation was passed in 1824 to "deal with" veterans of the Napoleonic wars who exposed their wounds in order to solicit money from passers-by. One hundred and sixty-six years later it is used to criminalise young homeless people. Why? Under that Act, sleeping out is a crime, as is asking the public for money. Under more recent Government legislation, 16 to 18-year-olds not living at home or on YTS programmes are not eligible for state financial support. What kind of Government is it who force youngsters to beg in order to survive, make them criminals when they do so, and further criminalise them when they have to sleep rough for lack of money?
A disproportionate number of these young people have run away from care; some agencies suggest that the figure is as high as 40 per cent. We must examine where and why our care system is failing them. A similarly high proportion have told voluntary workers that they were
692
subjected to physical or sexual abuse at home, in school or in care, and cannot go home. I take this opportunity to express my concern about one particular aspect of child protection. I refer to the vetting of adults applying for jobs that will bring them into close contact with children. We have all been appalled by cases of children who were placed in care as a refuge from something that occurred in their background and who have then been further abused while in that care.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities' recent survey on vetting procedures makes alarming reading. It reports delays ranging from three weeks to 10 weeks in some areas. At least one hon. Member has publicly criticised the police for unnecessary and bureaucratic delay, but the picture is not that simple. That police are at full stretch, trying to cope with the greatly increased demand on vetting services. That demand has arisen, rightly, from heightened awareness of the need to extend the protection of children.
In 1987–88, almost half a million inquiries were processed in response to requests from local authority departments, social service departments, probation services, and health authorities. Fewer than 400 requests were received from the Department of Education and Science on behalf of independent schools. Without a Government commitment to provide additional resources, the police will either have to resign themselves to an ever-lengthening backlog of inquiries or to providing a restricted and less than thorough service.
All that is at a time when the Government are encouraging education authorities—especially those in inner city areas—to advertise abroad for qualified teachers to plug staffing gaps. Some European countries provide their nationals with a certificate of good conduct, but not all. Can the Minister for Health confirm, by making inquiries among her colleagues, that the Department of Education and Science provides no guidelines to local education authorities as to the countries in which they should advertise for teaching staff, bearing in mind the important point that reciprocal arrangements exist in some? Do the Government have any plans for extending international co-operation between police forces after 1992, further to safeguard children from potential harm when they are in educational or caring establishments, given that there will be more open access to people from abroad to work in them?
In 1988–89, 2 million children were living in families on income support. Given the acknowledged inadequacies of state benefits, there can be no doubt that those children were, and still are, living in poverty. The children in single-parent families are likely to be worse off. Today, about 1 million lone parents, 90 per cent. of them women, are bringing up 1·6 million children—or 13 per cent. of all the children in the United Kingdom. About 65 per cent. of lone parents are dependent on income support—double the number of a decade ago. Most single parents are discouraged from working for reasons that include the high cost of child care, compelling them to seek a wage far higher than that which they are likely to obtain. They also risk the loss or reduction of housing benefits, the loss of free school meals, and of other concessions that they have when claiming income support. The low level of child benefit is another factor. The children of families living on benefits are at risk of poverty, and the link between poverty and reception into care is very strong.

693
The Government's most recent figures show that £9 million annually is being spent on preventive work, in trying to keep families together. I approve of that work, but £434 million was spent on fostering and residential care. Something is radically wrong.
A large number of children in this country are on at-risk registers. Latest figures for the London area show that between 400 and 600 children on at-risk registers have no social worker attached to them because there are insufficient staff to do that work. That underclass of child is not only poor but likely to be malnourished. We pay insufficient attention to food poverty. By and large, it is as true today as it was a century ago that a child's health and diet are dependent on its parents' economic status—with the notable exception of some middle-class parents who force-feed beefburgers to their children.
It is no use suggesting that families can work their way out of poverty and that they have only to get jobs for all to be well. Although some new jobs are being created, many of them are very low paid. People are now earning their poverty—receiving less in pay than the value of the supplementary benefits for which they would be eligible if unemployed. The Maternity Alliance report on poverty and pregnancy examined the cost of an adequate diet for expectant mothers. It found that many pregnant women faced serious difficulties in affording the kind of diet recommended by hospitals. The diet was costed at £15·88 per week in 1988—more than one quarter of income support for an unemployed couple expecting their first baby, and more than half the income support for a single woman aged 24 expecting her first baby. What was the use of the 1977 DHSS report that said:
"An inadequate diet before and during pregnancy may impair the growth of the baby and put at risk the health of both mother and child"?
In 1990, it is still women on low incomes, but especially unsupported mothers, whose babies face the greatest risk of being born underweight or of an early death.
Mr. James Paice: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Lestor: I did not intend to give way again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be called.
Our debates on the Broadcasting Bill have featured some striking omissions in respect of children, including the advertising of sweets, food and drinks on children's television. Recently, I accompanied a delegation to the IBA on behalf of dentists and nutritionists to protest at the amount of advertising of sugar-rich food and sweets. According to one food magazine, more than half of all advertisements on children's television encouraged an unhealthy and mainly sugary diet. Bearing in mind the large number of hours that children spend watching television, the IBA's code of practice is clearly failing to protect them. It is time the Government got tough and brought Britain into line with other European countries. Our guidelines are among the weakest in Europe. No encouragement is given to advertisers to relate proper teeth-cleaning habits or to promote the eating of decent foods. The health of our children should take precedence over commercial interests.
The same argument applies to child road safety and to the important hold that the road lobby seems to have over the present Government. More than 120 children are killed or injured on our roads each day. Road accidents are the leading cause of death among school-age children. We
694
have the second worst record of child road deaths in Europe. We need to know more about those accidents if we are to prevent further loss of life or injury.
Is poor housing, with inadequate play space, to blame? The National Playing Fields Association expressed concern last year at the ever-increasing commercial exploitation of land, insensitive planning and lack of awareness combining to threaten outdoor recreational space. The association says in its 1989 report:
"Too many playing fields and play grounds are deteriorating or disappearing altogether"
and that far too many major housing developments are created with inadequate green space, especially for children to play in. Are we taking any notice of such observations? Three fifths of all road accidents involving pre-school children occurred in the street less than 100 yards from the home. Do we plan for children when building new road systems? Eighty-five per cent, of casualties occur in built-up areas.
Mr. David Wilshire: Eighty-five per cent. of children live in built-up areas. What a stupid remark.
Miss Lestor: Over the past decade—[Interruption.] I do not know why Conservative Members find child deaths funny. I do not. I find them appalling. I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that they have been making stupid remarks. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman on my side. His hon. Friends have been making stupid remarks. Child deaths are not funny, and the fact that 85 per cent. of child deaths in roads occur in built-up areas needs to be studied.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: That is where they live.
Miss Lestor: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, that is where they live. If areas are built up to such an extent that children are killed, we should study the planning of such areas and decide to do something about it.
In the past decade we have seen increasing Government support for the arguments put forward by the pro-road lobby at the cost of young lives. The Secretary of State for Transport announced earlier this year that substantial sums would be allocated to new road-building programmes. What proportion of that is going towards road safety? I have submitted a written question on the matter and I am still waiting for an answer.
Children also need protection in the home. The impact of poverty on young lives can have a profound and damaging effect on children's life chances. We can now see evidence—although not yet Government evidence—of how children are being used to prop up the state. It is estimated that between 10,000 and 20,000 young people and children are carers of dependent adults. Many more will have taken on a substantial part of the responsibility for looking after brothers and sisters. Financial, practical and emotional help for such youngsters is grossly inadequate, and the Labour party is currently considering ways in which we can meet the needs of that special category of children.
We must reject the attitudes which lay behind the comment from one social services chairman that it was good training for a 10-year-old girl to get up three or for times in a night to help her disabled mother. Something is going wrong. Such children do an adult's work for no pay.
Many more children work illegally for low pay and as many as one in three children between the ages of 11 and

695
15 works outside school hours. It is estimated that 8 per cent. of them work illegally; they work too many hours. That is between 1 million and 2 million children.
Poverty and adult unemployment mean that all too frequently such children are the only breadwinner in the family, transforming at a stroke working for pocket money into an essential element of the family budget. The Anti Slavery Society, Defence for Children International and other organisations have carried out studies which show that many children work longer hours than adults, often doing two jobs, one before and one after school. Those are the children who are tired at school, frequently go absent for short periods of time and fail to reach expected educational standards. When are the Government going to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973?
I do not have time, bearing in mind what I told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to go into many other matters. Truancy is on the increase both among younger and older children and how such children spend their time causes great concern to all agencies.
Last November the United Nations adopted a convention on the rights of the child. At its heart lies the recognition that each child is a valuable and unique individual. It stressed the need to balance the child's right to security, protection, education and nurture with its right to be listened to, responded to and respected. Seven months later we are still waiting for a timetable for its ratification by the House. Why are we waiting so long?
I was involved in some of the discussions on the convention on the rights of the child and I noticed that in this country people's thoughts usually flew to Third world children where extreme poverty and underdevelopment deny them security, education, proper nurturing and protection, where they are exploited and abused, and live and work in the streets, robbed of their childhood. Many die before they have a chance to live. However, this country is neither poor nor underdeveloped. We have no such excuse.
7.44 pm
The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the major programme of work in the child care and child protection field which the Government are overseeing and undertaking in co-operation with local government and the voluntary sector, backed up by the Children Act 1989, which will establish an improved court system for children and a new balance between public support of children within their families and action to protect children from abuse and neglect, and families from unwarranted intrusion by the state; and welcomes other initiatives such as the reformed system of social security which targets help more effectively on the least well off among families with children.'.
Children are the key to our future and the true wealth of our nation. They are our most sacred trust. The Government are committed to encouraging responsible attitudes towards the care and upbringing of children and to providing a framework for health, community, education and social services. Wherever possible, we want to enable families to provide for their children's welfare. When necessary, others need also to be able to assist or to intervene.
The Government undertake to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This is an issue of profound
696
concern to all of us. We want to take forward thinking and action on children's issues. We already have a record of achievement. This debate provides a welcome opportunity to set out our far-reaching programme.
I have already had discussions with the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on a number of subjects, and I do not for one moment doubt her sincerity about the needs of children, but it is important that the Government should set a framework within which we can work with local authorities. Above all, children belong in families and in communities. We have to spread that sense of responsibility and awareness of children's needs throughout society. It is a source of regret, although scarcely surprise, that so often the hon. Lady should have sought to make rather petty party political capital out of a subject on which, frankly, there are many areas of broad agreement.
The way to provide for the financial side of the welfare of children, as for other vulnerable groups, is to establish a flourishing economy.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who will wind up the debate, will be speaking in greater detail about some of the benefits that are available to families.
Few doubt the commitment of the Opposition to children, but we all have every reason to doubt their ability to deliver. Under the Government, over the past 10 years, families have seen major improvements in their living standards. There has been a 34 per cent. increase in the real value of take-home pay for a married man on average earnings with two children, compared with an increase of less than 1 per cent. under the last Labour Government.
This year nearly £10 billion is being spent on the whole range of benefits for the family. In real terms that is an increase of more than a quarter since 1979. Under the Labour party, financial support for the family was cut by nearly 10 per cent. in real terms in six miserable years.
The reforms of the social security system have rightly concentrated help on those most in need. This year £5·4 billion is going in social security payments to low-income families—the third year running when these families have seen real increases in income-related benefits.
Family credit, which was born out of the previous family income supplement, is a major initiative which was brought forward by my noble Friend Lord Joseph and is paid to the mothers in almost all cases. It is important in ensuring that working families do not lose out as they cross the threshold between unemployment and work and as they climb the income ladder. The average award is more than £27 a week and family credit now goes to more than 300,000 families—nearly half as many again as were helped under the old family income supplement. Twice as much help is being given now.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I wonder what the Minister would say to one of my constituents who, when she applied to the social fund for her expected baby's needs, was told that she could have money for a cot or a pram but not for both. Is that something which would have happened at any time before the Government came to power? I cannot remember anything like it—unless we look back to the years before 1945.
Mrs. Bottomley: Unlike the hon. Lady—or perhaps like her—I spent many years before entering this place working with precisely those families who were grappling with the

697
social security system. I worked for the Child Poverty Action Group, and I had the most enormous and overwhelming difficulty getting any kind of civilised or courteous handling for such families under the Labour Government. However, I would not seek to make any capital out of that.
In the provision of welfare services, difficult assessments have to be made. Low-income families can be confident that they have seen their benefits and incomes rise. The Opposition, as we have said time and time again, are not short of rhetoric but are devoid of the ability to turn that rhetoric into reality.
It is not my view, or that of the Government, that resources are the only issue. We also believe that children require the protection of legislation. It is a major tragedy of our society that still there are children in our country who are neglected and abused and whose needs are not being met. We take considerable pride in the Children Act 1989, which was the work of my predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). It has placed on the statute book an integrated legislative framework which balances the needs of the child, parents and local authorities. We are working closely with local authority associations and voluntary organisations to make sure that the necessary guidance and training is in place. It is the first attempt to establish a unified and consistent code of law covering the care and upbringing of children in both the private and the public sectors. This is but the first of a series of reforms of family law.
We have begun a review of the law on adoption. We are expecting proposals from the Law Commission to reform the law on divorce and domestic violence.
Mr. Derek Conway: My hon. Friend has extolled the progress that has been made under this Government which, examined by any rational person, can be seen to be great compared with the sanctimonious words that were uttered earlier this evening. However, will my hon. Friend verify that some of the progress that we have tried to make by means of legislation could come adrift if some Government agencies are not sure about the purpose of the legislation? I ask her to consider the fact that Customs and Excise is making life difficult for those who offer a fostering service to more than three children by insisting that they should register for VAT. The Inland Revenue has been helpful and sympathetic but Customs and Excise has not. That is an example of the Government's intentions not always being fulfilled by a Government agency that is not helping those who foster and who may subsequently adopt children in need.
Mrs. Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his concern. If he will give me more details about those cases, I shall look into them.
I have referred to the important progress that we have made in trying to clarify and establish a legal framework that pays better regard to the needs of children. Those of us who have long deplored the needlessly destructive effects of the legal process on families welcome this progress towards an integrated structure of family law. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eccles has had to leave the Chamber, since she stressed that point.
The Children Act sets new standards in child care. The welfare of the child is paramount and must underpin any decision that a court makes about the care and upbringing
698
of children. The Act specifically requires the court to consider the child's wishes and feelings, its physical and emotional needs, the likely effect of changed circumstances and whether the parents are capable of meeting the child's needs. The Act explicitly recognises that the child's welfare requires separate consideration from any rights or needs of the parents. We replace terms such as "parental rights and duties" with the concept of parental responsibility—a responsibility that persists through divorce, separation or care. It can be relinquished only if the child is adopted.
The new range of court orders concentrates the minds of parents on their continuing responsibility for the upbringing of the child in family proceedings. The hon. Member for Eccles did not refer to the responsibilities of parents. We recognise that there is a role for Government and local authorities and that often there is a central role for voluntary organisations, which have done so much to improve child care, but we believe strongly that parents, above all, have a responsibility and that legal processes should never inadvertently undermine their role.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I waited to intervene until the Minister had completed her remarks about the Children Act. I am disappointed that she has not responded to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) to talk about resources. All those who are involved with the implementation of the Children Act are concerned about adequate resources being made available for the purpose. When the Bill was considered in Committee emphasis was placed on the fact that additional resources would be needed. Already there are huge backlogs over the registration of child minders, day nurseries and private facilities because social services departments have been unable to employ sufficient people to complete their registration. What do the Government intend to do about that?
Mrs. Bottomley: I have not remotely come to the end of my remarks on the Children Act. I shall certainly deal with the implementation process and with the specific point made by the hon. Member for Eccles. Each year we have discussions with local authority associations about the challenges that they face. The resource implications of the Children Act were recognised by the Government. During this year's public expenditure discussions with local authorities we are considering whether additional resources will be needed. Some of them were referred to by the hon. Member for Eccles, such as the resource implications of those leaving care. The hon. Lady has a great interest in the working of the Children Act and I recognise her concern.
I return to the question that unites my hon. Friends—the responsibility of parents. Too often, under present arrangements, court orders treat children as though they were possessions to be fought over, along with the car a nd the microwave. The Act makes it clear that the child's religious persuasion, racial origin—a matter of concern to the hon. Member for Eccles—and cultural life and linguistic background should be taken into account in decisions affecting the child. Once again, recognition of the child's needs is central.
Mr. Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is truly amazing that in her 28-minute speech the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) made no mention of the role of parents in the welfare of children, or of the role of parents in terms of accepting responsibility for their children? Is it

699
not much more practical and realistic to ask ourselves about the responsibility of parents instead of knocking the Government and offering no alternative policies?
Mrs. Bottomley: The role of parents is fundamental. I have made it clear on many occasions that their role is not properly recognised. I think that both sides agree about the duty of local authorities under the Children Act to safeguard the welfare of children within the family, wherever possible. All hon. Members agree that, ideally, local authorities should not intervene only in order to remove a child; they should safeguard the child's place within the family. That is one purpose of the legislation.
Lord Joseph referred to the cycle of deprivation. He has made a continual and valuable contribution to the debate on the role of the family. The title of his most recent work, "The Rewards of Parenthood", speaks for itself. The background against which a child grows up is fundamental. Children require stability, continuity and affection as much as they need food, shelter and education. Some parents require help to cope with their child's demands. Bringing up children is no easy task. Individual children and circumstances present different challenges to different parents. No other role calls for the range of talents and sustained commitment that parenthood requires.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I draw the Minister's attention to a particular difficulty—what is going on in the Hong Kong camps. Britain has responsibility for that colony. I visited various camps last week under the auspices of the Hong Kong Government. I saw thousands of children in a camp holding 22,000 people on an eight-acre site. They were living in indescribable squalor behind metal bars and barbed wire. The psychologists and psychiatrists who visited the camp have reported that those children will be damaged for life. What do the Government intend to do about the conditions under which they live? Those children are being damaged. They are the responsibility of the British Government and it is all happening under the Union Jack. What are the Government going to do about it? I was besieged by people in those camps asking for a response from the British Government.
Mrs. Bottomley: Hon. Members will agree that it was wrong for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman. It is clear that the Government are deeply committed to resolving the situation in Hong Kong, but it is far from easy. The Opposition have naive aspirations with no possible mechanism for translating their pious hopes into policies and arrangements that can deliver the assistance that is required. I do not intend to give way any further.
Prevention of family breakdown is always better than cure. Volunteer or befriending schemes can help families to deal with difficulties, and a professional social worker or agency does not necessarily need to become involved. We particularly applaud the work of the home start consultancy, but others such as NEWPIN are being funded out of our £2 million under-fives initiative that is directed particularly towards assisting the voluntary sector. Similarly, the development of family centres in recent years has done much to promote informal
700
networks. I know that many hon. Members support a range of professional and voluntary organisations that play a crucial role.
The hon. Member for Eccles spoke about the needs of children leaving care. There is not doubt that leaving care without adequate support and proper arrangements can easily exacerbate a child's difficulties. A recent report has suggested that something like one third of the homeless youngsters on the streets of London were previously in care. The House will know that we are looking carefully at the problem of homelessness among young people. It is a complex, multi-faceted problem. It is not a question of vagrancy legislation or the particular arrangement of social security benefits. The Children Act placed a new duty on local authorities to advise, assist and befriend each child that they look after with a view to promoting his welfare when he leaves care. We fund a number of voluntary organisations to assist in that important work.
The number of women joining the work force is growing, and it is estimated that women will take up to 90 per cent. of the additional jobs that will be created between now and the end of the century. We firmly believe that parents should decide for themselves whether both parents or which parent should work when their children are young or still dependent.
A variety of day care services for pre-school and school-age children should be available so that parents may choose which best meets their children's needs. In the past 10 years there has been a rapid expansion in day care provision—a 90 per cent. increase in the number of children placed with child minders. In the debate about workplace nurseries I hope that none will overlook the important contribution made by child minders who can provide a continuity of care and stability that many other arrangements cannot. There has been a 75 per cent. increase in day nursery places, and all will welcome the recent concession from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to assist with workplace nurseries.
There has been an 18 per cent. increase in playgroup places. Playgroups provide help and day experience for 400,000 children each year. It is the most popular and widely used system for providing activity during the day for pre-school children and has the unique characteristic of providing encouragement, support and collaborative experience for the parents about whom my hon. Friends feel so strongly. In Britain 86 per cent. of all three to five-year-olds benefit from some form of day care or educational provision. Few other countries rival our record—only France and Belgium do—and the Netherlands is the only other country in the Community where children start compulsory full-time education at the age of five.
We believe that central Government have a role in establishing a legislative framework to regulate day care services, to issue general guidance on standards and quality and to test out new initiatives.
We see local authorities not as the monopolistic providers of day care, but increasingly as enablers. They have an important strategic and co-ordinating role to bring together local authority agencies, employers and voluntary groups to ensure that in each area adequate provision can be made for the growing number of children whose parents wish them to benefit from some form of pre-school experience or day care.
The hon. Lady mentioned a scourge on modern life. It is a source of perplexity and great concern that in an age

701
of unprecedented prosperity we continue to have in our midst children who are the subject of abuse. We have faced a series of harrowing tragedies where children have suffered or lost their lives at the hands of their parents. However, we have made substantial progress in child protection.
I am sure that the hon. Lady is well aware when reporting the number of children on at—risk registers that the figures are difficult to interpret. It is welcome that more neighbours, relations and parents are coming forward to suggest that children are at risk. The statistics have to be interpreted with some subtlety. We plan to reissue the document, "Working Together" which emphasises the central importance of collaboration between agencies. Time and again in child abuse cases the lack of inter-agency collaboration, co-operation and communication was a major source of the child's tragedy. Assisted by the National Children's Home, we are looking to set up a treatment initiative to study the range of treatment facilities currently available for abused children and young perpetrators of abuse. We plan to publish a further study of child abuse inquiry reports. So often the facts are recited at a major inquiry, but we wish to ensure that those facts and lessons are properly disseminated and learnt.
Above all, we recognise that effective training underpins good practice. The Department is devoting £19·4 million to its training support programme including £2·5 million for training on the Children Act and just over £7·3 million for training in child care and child protection. That will be of major assistance to local authorities and will ensure that those which continue to have difficulties—such as the ones to which the hon. Lady referred—can recruit and retain the staff that are so important in providing the necessary care.
Inevitably, co-ordination within Government is important. It is achieved through well-established interdepartmental liaison and working. There is scarcely a Department that does not have some responsibility or involvement with children. We want a co-ordinated, effective and comprehensive approach to child care policy. The interdepartmental group on child abuse was set up in March 1987. Its work is effective and it meets regularly to make further progress.
In the provision of day care, I chair the interdepartmental consultative group on provision of services for under-fives which regularly meets the local authority associations and voluntary bodies. It also includes the Department of Education and Science, the Home Office, the Department of Employment, the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish and Welsh Offices. The ministerial group on women's issues, so ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, has addressed itself to improving child care options. Recently, a number of initiatives have been set in hand: encouraging the establishment of a national association for commercial consultancies and providers, the Childcare Association; funding work on a new "kitemark" scheme for nurseries and consultancies to give further reassurance to parents; and encouraging schools to provide day care facilities after school hours or during holidays.
At a more recent meeting we set in hand the further provision that will shortly be produced by my Department of the new guidelines and regulations to local authorities on day care for children under eight on which we work closely with the Department of Education and Science.
702
The programme includes our work with local authorities to help them improve their practice on the registration of day care and the development of information services. When parents require services, they often require the information on how those services can best meet their and their children's needs. Our programme also aims to encourage employers to become involved in providing help with child care for their staff. There is an important role for employers who want to ensure that they can retain their work force as we move towards demographic change. It is important to build them into the partnership. Within Government, we are setting an example. At the last count, 26 Departments had their own holiday play schemes. We believe in example as well as exhortation.
Children's health is an important matter. There has been a continuing improvement in children's health over the past decade. The infant mortality rate and the various associated rates are key indicators not only of the state of maternal and child health and of NHS services but of national well-being. The figures for 1989 are particularly encouraging, showing the rates at their lowest-ever levels. Infant mortality is down from 12·8 to 8·4 per 1,000 births in the past 10 short years; perinatal mortality is down from just over 14 to just over eight per 1,000 births; and neonatal mortality is also down. This is a credit to all those working in the Health Service. It is a stimulus to further improvements in our services.
We are not complacent. Local figures vary between social and ethnic groups. A major initiative which vie announced last year in our reply to the Social Services Committee's report on perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality is designed to help us understand better the reasons for these local variations. Efforts must be more closely targeted to securing their reduction. We are seeking an even better performance. All regional health authorities have been asked to introduce regional epidemiological surveys of stillbirths and neonatal deaths. Each needs at least one paediatric pathologist in post to conduct a review of the need for further posts. Why do particular babies die? What more might be done to prevent their deaths? The confidential inquiry into stillbirths will have an important part to play. These initiatives include a critical review by the Medical Research Council of research into a problem that has caused great concern to many hon. Members—cot death, or sudden infant death syndrome.
Spending on maternity services increased by 16 per cent. in real terms between 1980 and 1988. Nursing and midwifery staff in the key areas of special and neonatal intensive care have increased. We have made progress on many other fronts. The hon. Member for Eccles referred to the source of the greatest number of deaths of young children by accidents—road traffic accidents. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who has aimed to make everyone aware of the importance of belting up in the back and taking responsibility for children in cars. The Department of Transport recently launched a child road safety campaign in which the NHS is committed to playing its part.
The GP contract is another opportunity to provide better care for children. For the first time, child health surveillance becomes an option from the GP as well as from local community services. Our commitment to promoting improved immunisation rates, again collaborating with GPs, will be a major force for good in

703
protecting children. Recently, we announced the remarkable new rates of vaccination and immunisation. We have not yet met all the World Health Organisation targets, but we are determined to do so.
We are committed to an integrated child health service. Under our proposals, the district health authority and family health service authority will work together to ensure that there is an integrated health service for children. The system of contracting will allow a more explicit and better analysed provision of services. There is no doubt that the progress that has occurred in past years will be consolidated and developed as our health reforms move forward.
The hon. Member for Eccles referred to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. The United Kingdom played a leading role in drafting it. We demonstrated our commitment to the convention by signing it in April and aim to ratify it as soon as possible. The convention specifically draws together the rights of the child in one internationally recognised document. It will serve as an international standard against which countries that turn a blind eye to child exploitation, abuse or neglect can be measured.
Progress has been made but challenges remain. The Government's co-ordinated programme of work on children's issues is ensuring that the physical, mental and social welfare of children and their parents is promoted at all times. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition's motion.
8.15 pm
Mrs. Llin Golding: It is repugnant to think of people posing as social workers to get into homes to molest children to satisfy their perverted desires. The distress caused to those families will live with them for a long time. It is imperative that all these perverted people be caught and punished. It is obvious that they are beyond redemption. Such people must be punished with all the force of the law.
But the law still fails to try alleged child molesters. Even when a person has been charged with sexual abuse, and despite the change in the laws on the giving of evidence by children and allowing video links, I am still getting letters from distraught parents where courts are refusing to hear cases. It cannot be right that parents and children learn to have so little faith in our legal system.
The Government should realise how the law is still failing our children and should make a speedy decision to implement in full the report by Judge Pigot of the advisory group on video evidence. Until and unless this far-sighted report is implemented, I can see little progress or justice for children in our courts. We have to do everything possible to reduce the abuse of our youngsters, but to reduce abuse we need not only to punish hut, if possible, to prevent. Of course many child molesters cannot be and have no wish to be reformed, but we know that some feel sick at what they do and desperately seek help. To help our children, we must help them.
There are people such are Ray Wyre of the Gracewell clinic in Birmingham who work hard to try to rehabilitate people who have been convicted of child abuse. But what help is given to assist those who have never been caught and who need help to stop? How many times have the
704
words, "I knew that I was doing wrong, but I didn't seem able to stop," been said by child abusers? Surely it makes sense to establish some kind of help line and counselling for those who wish to stop this dreadful abuse. We recognise the need for help for alcohol abuse, drug abuse, gambling abuse and, through Relate, for marriage breakdown.
The money, the advertising, the concern and the effort put in to tell desperate people where help is available are to be applauded, but where are the advertisements that say, "Ring this number so that we can help you to stop abusing children"? Surely it makes sense to establish some kind of help line to them. The argument against this is that any help line would be dealing with a criminal act, which it would have a duty to report to the police. I understand that, but when it comes to the protection of children and to saving them from abuse, we must look at the law and the legal position of help with different eyes, and we should say that anything that can be done to safeguard children from suffering should be done.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Golding: I would rather not give way, because we are pressed for time.
It is obvious that, in order to help our children, we must do something to help child molesters to stop abusing. Molesters cause great harm to many children, but many other children are hurt by our neglect—for example, the neglect to provide safe playgrounds. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents reports that last year 50,000 children were injured in playgrounds and a number were killed. Of those children, 11,500 were under five. Imagine the headlines in the tabloid press if 50,000 children were injured in a football stadium in one day. There would be a national uproar, massive media coverage, a public inquiry and calls for Ministers to resign. However, because those injuries are spread throughout the country and throughout the year, hardly anyone notices.
The progress being made by local authorities towards the provision of safe surfaces and safe equipment in playgrounds is painfully slow because of lack of money and the fear of rate capping. If grants can be given to football stadiums—rightly so—to improve safety, why cannot the Government give special grants to local authorities to improve the safety of playgrounds? The children's pain and suffering is no less because the accidents are spread over many days. We have a duty to those 50,000 children to protect them from harm, broken limbs and even death.
Not only do we have a duty to the unknown number of children who suffer abuse and the children who suffer injuries in playgrounds: we also have a duty to provide shelter for all our children. It is a disgrace that, last year, 120,000 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities and that London appears to be in danger of becoming the Delhi of the western world. We need only visit cardboard city, which is only a short walk from the Houses of Parliament, to hear stories of desperation and of young people being criminalised under the vagrancy legislation because society and hon. Members have failed them.
In the 10 years between 1979 and 1989, 1 million families were registered as homeless in this country. That represents about 3 million people, over half of whom were

705
children. For them that has meant poor living conditions, overcrowding and often insanitary conditions, with no privacy or space to learn or to develop. For too many of our young people, that has been the background to their family life.
We must provide houses for people at rents that they can afford. The housing associations are doing their best. The private sector is failing badly. The Government must make it possible for councils to build houses for those in need. Children deserve warm, comfortable, safe homes.
It is our duty to protect the welfare of children. We in Parliament cannot dodge that responsibility. We must ensure that children receive the protection of the law, that they are not put at risk in playgrounds and that they are brought up in homes worthy of Britain in the 1990s. We should not and we must not fail them.
8.22 pm
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is a sad reflection of the level of interest in the welfare of children among Labour leaders that they have reduced this debate to half a day. We should not scamper through a debate on children. I want to address my remarks on the welfare of children primarily to the health care needs of children and the way those are met in Lancaster, the area that I know best.
Last Thursday, the north Lancashire Child Poverty Action Group produced a report entitled "Poverty in North Lancashire", which was not only highly misleading, but a slur on the hospitals, doctors, nurses and everyone else who provides devoted health care in Lancaster.
The Lancashire CPAG selected Bulk ward, which contains Moor hospital. That is a long-stay mental hospital which has a large number of very elderly, long-stay residents who live there for the closing years of their lives. Not surprisingly, there is quite a high rate of respiratory disorders and deaths from lung cancer in that ward. From that, the report deduces that, if one lives in Bulk ward, one is four times more likely to die of respiratory disease than the average English resident and twice as likely to die of lung cancer. What that has to do with a report which is ostensibly about children I am not quite sure, since we have never had a death from lung cancer in a child and the child death rate in Bulk is similar to that in Silverdale, which can scarcely be described as a deprived area.
The north Lancashire Child Poverty Action Group's report does not give a shred of credit to the local health workers for the many firsts that they had achieved. Ours was the first district to have a child development centre and the first district to attach nursing staff to health care teams and to provide domiciliary physiotherapists, who visit people at home and can help children and others with respiratory problems. The 24-hour domiciliary nursing service was one of the first, if not the first, in the country.
Because of the very high standard of health care in the city, people, including children, come from miles around to benefit from the care that our hospitals provide. When the NHS reforms are implemented next year, and money follows the patient, we will be able to expand our hospital services still further.
In 1988 we had a quite unexpected, sad and inexplicable upturn in perinatal deaths and an inquiry was set up immediately to discover the reason for that, since we had been well below the national average for perinatal deaths
706
every year from 1976. The inquiry found that those sad deaths were of babies with congenital defects so severe as to be incompatible with survival. The figures soon to be published for 1989 will, thankfully, show that that sad phase is now over and that we are back well below the national average once again. I cannot blame the local Child Poverty Action Group for not knowing that welcome news as the results for 1989 have not yet been published. However, the report is to blame for the equally misleading account of unemployment and its relationship to children.
There are no figures for the percentage unemployed in separate wards. Those figures have simply not been compiled. There are figures for the number of unemployed people living in each ward and I have been receiving those figures for years. However, as there are no figures for the total work force, any percentage figures are pure guesswork.
None of that means that we or anyone concerned with health care for adults or children are in any way complacent in Lancaster. We are all constantly striving to improve services in our hospitals and in the community and to provide better jobs. A new children's unit will bring together almost all the specialist provision for children in one unit. In addition, under the new health reforms, there will be a new area director for the new family practitioner committee area of the Lancaster and Blackpool districts, whose brief is to assess health care needs and to develop services to cope with them.
In particular—I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister referred to this point—43 local GPs will be able to perform minor surgery, thus cutting waiting times, and no fewer than 23 GPs in the city have received approval to provide a child surveillance service. Children will also undoubtedly benefit from the emphasis on health promotion and preventive medicine in the NHS reforms.
There is, however, one area of Government policy with which I do not agree. I believe that child benefit, as a free-standing, non-means tested payment direct to mothers, should be index-linked, like tax allowances and other benefits. That is what I understood by the pledge in our election manifesto that child benefit will be paid
"as now, to the mother."
It is possible that I misunderstood the pledge, but I believe that my interpretation is better than the Governrneni:'s. For many women, child benefit is their only independent source of income and they rely heavily on it. It should be indexed, and I hope that that will be done in the forthcoming expenditure round.
However well we look after the health needs of our children, however much we may improve employment prospects and the material aspects of their lives, the prime ingredient in a child's welfare is, and will remain, a happy, stable home. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister placed great emphasis on that.
No marriage, however good, can ever be wholly free of ups and downs—not even that of my hon. Friend the Minister. Indeed, it would be very dull and boring if it were. However, the House bears a heavy responsibility for weakening the marriage bond. The time that must elapse between marriage and divorce has been steadily shortened and the deterrents to living together without undertaking the reciprocal responsibilities of marriage have been steadily diminished. If hon. Members really care about the welfare of children, the House must take a lead in refusing to make divorce ever easier and instead put as much energy

707
as possible into building up marriage and thus make the best possible contribution to the real and lasting welfare of children.
The declaration of the rights of the child, of which I have a copy, includes in its preamble protection before and after birth. It is a pity that the House forgot that when it cavalierly cast away the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 six weeks ago.
8.30 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Last year I had the opportunity to speak in the House and in Committee during the passage of the Children Bill. That Bill, which is now an Act, did not go far enough for some of the people who are concerned with the welfare of children, but it was welcomed by all as a step in the right direction. The Act consolidates and simplifies the complex law relating to children. It is intended that the Act be brought into force by October 1991, but already the timetable lags behind.
One of the features of the Act and one of the nagging concerns of many hon. Members was that it left many decisions on policies and procedures to regulations by the Secretary of State. Some of those matters can have serious consequences for the children concerned. Before implementation, there must be time for the various bodies concerned with children's welfare to scrutinise and assess the implications of the regulations and, if necessary, to make representations to the Secretary of State. To date, only one regulation has come forth from the Secretary of State for Health. I understand that his time has been taken up with other matters, but that is the very point that I make. Will quick correct decisions be made?
The measures to be introduced in the Act are coming in at a time of great change. Local authorities, which will be responsible for implementing many of the measures contained in the Act, are facing massive upheavals. Now and in the next few years, local government will be expected to come with changes in our schools through local management, the national curriculum, competitive tendering, the privatisation of services, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, community care, changes to our National Health Service and, as everyone is only too aware, a restructuring of the financial system, with the consequential nightmare of the administration of the poll tax. Each of those items affects the welfare of our children.
I firmly believe that the Children Act 1989 does not go far enough. As I said on Second Reading on 27 April 1989, the Act does not address such important factors as inadequate housing, low incomes, general deprivation and other issues that were aggravated by the Government's lack of concern and by their policies for local government, child allowance and social security payments. Things have got dramatically worse.
Homelessness has increased by 20 per cent. Over the past three years, the number of homeless households placed in temporary accommodation has increased by 25 per cent. The number of young people between the ages of 16 and 19 who, under the Children Act are still regarded as children and who are homeless and, on the streets of London, is estimated as at least 50,000. Those people do not appear in the official statistics. When we add that figure to the 362,309 homeless persons, as estimated by
708
Shelter, it adds up to many hundreds of children living in conditions that are detrimental if not outright harmful to their health, well-being and quality of life.
In 1987, there were more than 450 known cases of children being taken into care simply because of homelessness. I wonder what the figure is today—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
Children of homeless families are known to suffer physically, emotionally and educationally. They have a poor chance in life. There are short-term, medium-term and long-term remedies for relieving the number of homeless. Most of them are well documented, including those contained in my party's White Paper entitled "Housing: A Time for Action" and in the document entitled "Seen But Not Heard", which was launched today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The Government have the power to do something, and they must not neglect their duty. Surely in this day and age children have a right to a roof over their heads.
Poverty is one of the main causes of homelessness, but, even for those who are lucky enough to have a home, poverty is a major factor in poor health. The number of known families with children living below the poverty line has increased enormously over the past few years. It is a common perception that, since the Goverment took office, the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer. The effects of the high interest rates and the rising inflation of the past two years alone must give some truth to that statement. Ilowever, the one benefit that is directed specifically at children has been frozen for years. The restoration of its value would go a long way towards improving the life styles of children from low-income families.
Current trends in society and in the market demand that more and more mothers go out to work, yet we still have one of the worst European Community records in the provision of nursery and child care. Once again, the Goverment's policy on tax relief for workplace nurseries, although welcome as an anti-discriminatory measure, will prove beneficial only to those who by definition already have an adequate income because they pay more tax. Nursery care, out-of-school care and other child care services should be a major priority for all children, but such care is even more important for the disadvantaged. There is a general duty on local authorities to provide services for children in need, but the wording of the duty is not as strong as many would have hoped, and the delivery of such services may depend on adequate funding and resources.
That is unfortunately true of many of the Government's measures and changes. I say "unfortunately" because, although some of the ideas are right, I do not believe that they are introduced for the best reasons. Most changes are taking place because of political ideology rather than interest in the welfare of the child or other client. Part of that ideology is to save the public purse.
The measures contained in the Children Act and in the proposed changes to community care will call not only for a change in attitude in social services but for training in various skills. The proposed changes could work well as long as local government is given the funds and resources required to implement them. Some of the proposals currently being implemented in education may also have some benefits, but, until the Government realise that they

709
need to provide for the anomalies that have appeared in the funding mechanism, chaos will still reign and our children will lose.
I do not think that adequate funding for the proposals in the new health Bill will help to improve our Health Service. The proposals can only damage a health service that was designed to provide comprehensive health care free at the point of delivery. They will also have a detrimental effect on the health of our children. Once again, those in need will suffer most. I fear for the future. The debacle that we have seen with the introduction of the poll tax and future pressure on local government finance may bring about the end of many personal social services that are vital to the well-being of the community as a whole.
When funds are scarce, local authorities will need to set priorities. It is difficult to judge priorities in the provision of such vital services, and it is likely that the services that are not already in place will be the first to get the axe. That does not augur well for services that contribute to the welfare of children.
I have tried to cover many topics, but, because the welfare of children depends on so many of our institutions, we should go further. The Department of Health, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Social Security have a major part to play. At local level, education, health, social service and social security offices interplay. Co-operation and co-ordination are essential. Some local authorities are already achieving a level of co-operating and co-ordinating their work—others are dragging their feet for one reason or another.
All those bodies need Government support, possibly institutional, to encourage them and to guide them. At the very least, we need a national strategy for the welfare of children—a clear statement of aims, objectives and rights that can form the framework within which all the departments and bodies concerned with children can work. That would make their job a great deal easier.
On Second Reading of the Children Act, I called upon the Government to take the opportunity of attaching a children's charter to it. I failed in my attempt, but I was pleased to have the opportunity to table an early-day motion to welcome the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I urge the Government to take the necessary measures to ratify the convention and to use it as a base upon which to build a national strategy for the welfare of our children.
8.40 pm
Mr. Roger Sims: I was impressed and pleased when I saw that the Opposition had chosen the welfare of children as the subject for today's debate. However, my feelings soon changed when I found—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has commented—that at short notice the debate had been reduced to half a day to allow a debate on eye tests. That is an issue on which I share the Opposition's view, but the timing is singularly inappropriate and it is unfortunate that that debate led to the curtailing of this debate.
Then I saw the opening words of the Opposition's motion, which are pure party political claptrap. I then read the rest of the lengthy motion in which there is no mention of the Children Act 1989, which is surely the most
710
important piece of legislation in this area to have passed through the House in this Parliament—or, indeed, for a century. It is the most important piece of legislation since the original Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children Act 1889.
The passing of the 1989 Act was marked by all-party support throughout. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and his hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee deserve some of the credit for the success of that Act, but that legislation has been completely ignored in the Opposition's motion. It is deplorable that the Opposition should now choose children as the basis on which to launch a party political attack. That does not reflect any credit on them.
The Children Act struck the right balance between the rights of children, the rights of parents and the responsibility of the state in the form of the local authorities. Alas, we all know the long string of cases, followed by inquiries, when the social worker has intervened too late. Cleveland is still fresh in our minds; to put it no higher, in some cases the social workers were too precipitate. It was important that we should get that balance right, and I hope and pray that we did so in the Children Act. Among the Act's many notable features is the recognition of the principle that the child's welfare is paramount. The Act introduced the emergency protection order, and especially the child assessment order, which is such an important step in allowing access to a child where there is concern, but not necessarily an emergency.
We have passed the Act and it is now up to the local authorities to implement it, together, of course, with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which is named in the Act and which, as the House knows, has 66 child protection teams on 24-hour call in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The House will be aware of my interest in and involvement with t he NSPCC. Needless to say, my reference to the society in no way diminishes my admiration for the work of the other organisations to which the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) referred.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I know of my hon. Friend's support for the work of the NSPCC, but is he aware ofits work in funding Westminster house in Warrington, which is the first team effort of its kind for child protection? That centre is right next to the courts and social services which, together with the NSPCC, combine in trying to provide good services for children from Cheshire and further afield. I understand that it is the first such centre in this country.
Mr. Sims: I am not familiar with the project that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but it is typical of the way in which local authorities and organisations such as the NSPCC can work together for the benefit of children.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister detailed the extra funds that will be provided. We cannot emphasise too strongly how vital it is that adequate resources are available to provide both the facilities needed to implement the Children Act and the training for those with the job of implementing it.
We all understand the demands that are placed on the Government from all quarters and what happens during the public expenditure survey, but, as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) said, we must all recognise that

711
local authorities have particular difficulties at the moment in introducing the community care provisions of existing legislation—the Children Act, and other measures. If adequate resources are not provided for the implementation of the Children Act, all our efforts in the House will have been in vain. It would not be the first time that we have been accused of passing legislation for the ends but not providing the means.
The motion refers to co-ordination between organisations in gathering information. A lot is going on in that area; much of it, such as the register, follows initiatives from the NSPCC. There is a need for research into understanding child abuse and the most effective forms of intervention. We must consider how best the various agencies—medical, social work and police—can work together in this area.
We should not underestimate the size of the problem or the number of children who need protection. To quote but one statistic, in the year to the end of September 1989, 49,000 children were referred to the NSPCC alone. The NSPCC estimates that nationally probably 8,000 children suffer physical abuse, 6,000 are sexually abused and thousands suffer from neglect or emotional abuse or are simply left alone for many hours.
Our approach should be based on the four principles of the United Nations convention—the four Ps of prevention, protection, provision and participation. Prevention involves the development of, for example, drop-in facilities and self-help groups for young parents. Even earlier, we should include preparation for parenthood—how important that is—in the school curriculum. Prevention also includes making the public more aware of the problem by organised publicity such as the NSPCC's "Listen to Children" campaign.
Protection involves the proper training of social workers to ensure that children at risk are protected. As the hon. Member for Eccles said, it is not acceptable to have children on the at-risk register if a social worker is not assigned to them.
Provision means the provision of help to families and single parents who are poor, inadequate or homeless. Those are often the circumstances in which abused children are found. Such children are in danger of growing up and perhaps eventually becoming abusing parents themselves—and continuing the cycle.
Participation means giving the children themselves access to help through things such as Childline—the NSPCC's child protection line.
I join the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) in urging the Government to implement the Pigot report so that children can be involved in court proceedings through video—recorded evidence and do not have to suffer the trauma of appearing personally. We must ensure that children are properly represented in court proceedings by independent guardians ad litem.
Children should be involved as far as possible in decisions affecting their future. Against the four principles of prevention, protection, provision and participation, the Government have a record of promotion of the welfare of children of which they can be proud. They should be proud but not complacent. Ministers know better than I do that there remains a great deal to be done. Certainly, the ratification of the UN convention would, as the
712
Opposition motion suggests, be an earnest of the Government's commitment to the cause of the welfare of children. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister could not give a specific date, but I urge her to use all her influence to ensure that ratification takes place as soon as possible.
8.50 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I pay tribute to the Opposition Front Bench for giving us tonight the opportunity to raise issues of great concern to many of our constituents. I found it amusing that my Front-Bench colleagues were attacked for allowing only three hours for this debate. At least we have three hours. The Opposition have taken that initiative. It is a great pity that the Government have not taken such an initiative.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) referred to worries about bogus social workers. That is a particular problem and worry for many people in the Yorkshire area, where the largest number of incidents has been reported. The figure mentioned at the police conference earlier this week was about 170, of which they are taking seriously approximately 30. I wish to express my anxiety that, although there have been many incidents and many descriptions have been given of the individuals involved, no arrests have been made and no one has been brought to book. I do not criticise the police: I simply ask whether police forces are allocating sufficient resources to the police officers conducting the investigations. Perhaps the Minister could raise the matter with her Home Office colleagues.
I had hoped that the Minister for Health would remain in the Chamber, because the Department of Health has a responsibility in the issue of bogus social workers. It is in a position to make clear to the public precisely what social workers can and cannot do. The Minister will be aware, as I am, that the powers of social workers on the doorstep are limited. In view of the extent of the problem, the Department should have issued a clear statement through the Government's publicity machine informing the public what powers social workers have. I hope that the Minister will communicate to her hon. Friend the Minister for Health my anxieties about the matter. The Department could be helpful in following the example of the British Association of Social Workers and several local authorities by issuing a statement such as I suggested explaining to the public what social workers can and cannot do.
I had the positive experience not too long ago, along with the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and some of my hon. Friends, of serving on the Standing Committee on the Children Bill. There was a consensus within the Committee, and the two sides worked together in a positive way, as the hon. Member for Chislehurst said. I am worried by the complete failure of the Government properly to fund the implementation of that legislation. That anxiety has been expressed to me by local authorities, councillors and directors of social services and, indeed, by voluntary organisations involved in child care. It is estimated that, in the next financial year, local authorities will need £140 million of additional resources to implement the legislation properly. If the Government are serious about the Children Act 1989, they must provide the money required at grass roots level to implement the good work that could arise from it.

713
The Minister could also communicate to the Minister for Health that local authorities are worried by the lack of guidance from the Department of Health on the implementation of the Children Act 1989. I understand that local authorities were promised about 30 sets of notes of guidance some considerable time ago. The documents were due to be released by the Department of Health but they have yet to appear. In view of the time scale for implementation, it is about time that the Department of Health got its act together to get the information through to local authorities.
As I said, I and some Conservative Members felt that there was a political consensus in the Committee on the Children Bill. However, it has become apparent in the debate tonight that there is no political consensus about the reasons behind the problems faced by children who come to the attention of local authority child care and social services departments and the problems that vast numbers of children at risk face day by day.
We have heard comments from Conservative Members about parental responsibility. As a parent, I take that responsibility seriously. I am sure that any parent takes it seriously. It is the responsibility to give the child food and shelter. But it is easier for some parents to exercise that responsibility than for others. That is the difference between the two sides of the Chamber tonight. Opposition Members recognise that fact. What annoys me deeply about the Government's tactics in the welfare of children is the way in which they deliberately encourage the belief that child neglect and abuse should be viewed simply as abnormal family behaviour—as an individual, not a societal matter. I feel strongly about that.
For much of the time before I became a Member of Parliament, I was involved directly in dealing with cases of child neglect and abuse in my work in social services. It is worrying that the Government see child abuse and neglect as a technical problem which needs technical solutions. They do not see it in the wider context that my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) outlined. My hon. Friend was accused of playing politics. We are not playing politics: we are examining the real issues behind many of the problems which face children who are abused, neglected and hurt in our society.
It is vital that child welfare is seen in a wider political context and that we examine and address the causes, not just the symptoms presented day by day to social services departments. The causes include poverty. Let us be honest about it. Both Conservative and Opposition Members recognise that there is poverty in our society. Whatever one's politics, we can see it in our surgeries every week. People simply do not have enough to live on and are driven to desperation in many instances.
From the work that I have done, in social services, as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament, I recognise the connection between poverty and the number of children who end up in care. The figures on children in care show that most of them come from poor families. That is no coincidence.
During the recess last week, I read a book called "The Politics of Child Welfare" written by two former colleagues of mine in West Yorkshire, Nick Frost and Mike Steen. One quote from that book rang home with me, because it made sense:
"The families of the poor have little left to lose. Why should they lose their children?"
714
Let us take the issue seriously. It is wrong that we take the children of poor people into care. We should look for alternatives. At present we often do not do so.
I do not need to quote the Social Services Select Committee report, which makes it clear that the position of the poor had worsened under this Government. That has directly affected vast numbers of children and we should be ashamed of it. I do not need to mention unemployment, but there is a clear correlation between family breakdown and unemployment. It has been widely researched and there is objective political consensus that it has a bearing on family and marriage breakdown. In my area there has been an 800 per cent. increase in homelessness. Children are entering care simply because their parents do not have a decent house for them to live in. That is a scandal in this day and age, yet it is happening today, this week, this year. It is wrong.
I am only the second or third man to speak in this debate. It is interesting that we have a predominance of women in the Chamber for this debate, and I welcome it. I only wish that more women were Members of Parliament. They have a particular contribution to make on this issue.
Sexual inequality has a direct relationship with sexual abuse. We should look at the matter and not play politics with child sexual abuse, as some hon. Members do. We should seriously consider why these problems arise. Sexual abuse is predominantly about male power and the way in which society allows a distorted construction of masculinity. It is particularly distorted by the squalid commercial use of sex. It is interesting that the newspapers that peddle pornography are those that strongly support the Conservative Government. There is a clear correlation between the two. We need to address the fact that certain men turn out as they do. It is difficult for us males to do that. I hope that we shall have more time in the Chamber to address those difficult issues.
I am worried about how we address the problems of children at risk in terms of supervision, not prevention. If something goes wrong, we blame the social worker, the health visitor, the lack of inter-agency co-operation, bad parenting or bad professional practice, but not bad policies or bad Governments. It is about time that we started looking at how bad policies and bad Governments, of whatever political complexion, have a bearing on what happens to children.
There is a desperate need to change the agenda on child welfare to tackle the causal factors of the problems—for example, how we treat the poor, how we treat black people and how men treat women. We need to look at those issues. Above all, we need a strategy that looks not just at the clinical treatment of individual children and individual families, but at overall economic and housing policies and policies on sexual equality. Issue after issue has a bearing on the lives of children. That strategy will be number one on the list of priorities of the forthcoming Labour Government, and I look forward to their election.
9.2 pm
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Tonight the Opposition have chosen to put child welfare at the top of their agenda for one evening, although, unfortunately, there are not many here to witness it. Contrary to what their motion says, over the past 11 years children have always been at the top of our agenda.

715
I welcome the debate because it helps to provide an umbrella welfare policy over all the measures from the many Departments, including the Departments of Health, of Social Security and of Employment. All are involved in the needs of children. Unfortunately, the Opposition have opposed many of the measures that we have introduced in the past 11 years. I hoped that tonight the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) might suggest some constructive policies, but in their absence from her rather gloomy speech I remind her of Labour Members' vociferous opposition to our education reforms.
Education is the basis of any child's development. If the ground rules are not firmly established at an early stage in a child's education, all talk of the child's welfare may as well go out of the window. Parents, teachers and peer groups are children's greatest role models. If their important influence and example are felt in early years, many later problems, particularly in teenage years, could be slashed. Although I am a career woman, I am the first to admit that there is no one quite like mum. If mums can possibly stay at home for the first five years of a child's life—I know that in many cases mothers must work—that child will have a stable start in life.
I am encouraged by the progress that we have made in bringing parents and education closer together. That has been neglected in the past. Not so long ago, many schools did not welcome parents into the classrooms, and parents were not encouraged to form parent-teacher associations; now, at long last, they are not being kept at arm's length. Our reforms involve parents in knowing what their children should be learning, and when they should learn, in assessing their children's ability potential and in knowing their children's weaknesses and strengths throughout the crucial school years. Parents are now encouraged to become school governors, to choose where their children go to school and—in many ways—to say who should run their school.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Eccles did not mention the role of parents. Nothing gave me more pleasure than visiting a school in my constituency and seeing many mums informally reading with their children: it was not just a few children and parents, but a hallful. One more ingredient must be added to the education reforms. I know that I could be labelled old-fashioned, but to formulate successfully the foundation for our children's education we must give them sound discipline. I am not alone among parents in saying that if we restored corporal punishment it would be a great help to teachers. Any debate on the welfare of children cannot get away from the subject of discipline.
Of course more mothers are going out to work. I fear that, as a result, in some areas where it is difficult to provide child care and parents have not adequate resources there could be an increase in the number of latch-key children hanging round waiting for their parents to come home from work. I am encouraged that the Government have taken the initiative to write to chief education officers and school governors to ask for school premises to be made available after school, and—more important—during school holidays. It is ridiculous that school sports facilities, for instance, are closed for a third of the year. In inner cities such as mine, many children live
716
in high-rise areas, and have not had experience of green areas. I am sure that we could encourage more education authorities to make school facilities available.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Hicks: I cannot give way; time is pressing.
People sometimes forget that children are their parents' responsibility, and not society's. Some parents abdicate that responsibility which imposes a burden on the rest of society. It is encouraging that, to assist the Government and parents, many action groups are now coming forward. It is sad to hear that children—some barely out of their prams—are tempted to smoke, drink and, certainly in my area, to sniff glue and take drugs. I congratulate groups such as the "parents' action against tobacco" campaign, which aims to discourage shopkeepers from selling cigarettes to children; the Portman group, which aims to deter underage drinking; and the Birmingham Post campaign to try to stop shopkeepers providing children as young as 14 with video nasties which should be given only to people over 18. All those initiatives should be endorsed.
The hon. Member for Eccles mentioned the power of television advertising. I would go a step further. We talk of the influence of parents, schools, and children's peer groups, but the influence of television is especially worrying. From the age of four onwards, children are watching an average of three to four hours' television a night. I am sure that none of us would support that, as it is a great tragedy and a bad influence on our children. Children now have greater expectations and more pocket money. Those are all social trends that contribute to the welfare debate.
I know that the Opposition throw stones at us about the number of homeless children today. Many do not choose to make themselves homeless, but I am disappointed to hear Opposition Members suggest that we should encourage young people to take the option to leave home to go to London should they wish, and allow them to sleep rough.
Miss Lestor: Who said that?
Mrs. Hicks: My hon. Friend the Minister also informed us that many young people are driven out of their homes. Families should do all that they can to keep together.
In common with the Minister, I encourage every young person into training. As the option for training on YTS or whatever is available to every child, I am amazed that Opposition Members should suggest that if a child does not want such training it need not take it. Surely our aim must be to encourage children to train so that, ultimately, they can get jobs.
I know that many of my constituents welcome the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill as they hope that it will contain further measures to make parents responsible for their children's criminal actions. I have no doubt that if parents have to go before a court and pay some of the fines imposed on their children that will make them more responsible for their children's actions.
I recognise that domestic violence and divorce are increasing. Those are serious issues and, as things are getting worse, I have no doubt that the Government will need to consider them more closely. It is inevitable that domestic violence and divorce cause emotional problems for children and financial resource problems for the

717
Government. It is right that we are taking steps to make fathers who leave their wives and children more responsible. At the moment only a quarter of fathers make the desired payments and it is right that the Government should act.
I also applaud the work of the agency Relate. If we can prevent children from being harmed in any way and families from being broken up, we must support agencies such as Relate whose voluntary workers do their best to keep families together.
I found the Opposition's motion somewhat waffley and I have not heard many constructive policies from Labour Members. I know that the Labour party has put forward many proposals in its policy document and perhaps tonight was an opportunity to give some of them an airing. However, the hon. Member for Eccles did not mention nursery education, perhaps because she is aware of the 50 per cent. increase in nursery school provision by the Government. Perhaps she is also aware of the cuts imposed by the previous Labour Government. I believe that I am right in saying that the hon. Lady was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education when considerable cuts were made in educational provision and that she was forced to resign.
Miss Lestor: I was not forced.
Mrs. Hicks: I admire the hon. Lady for following her principles.
When the Labour party criticises our measures on child welfare it should remember that it made hasty promises in the past about nursery education for every child. We have sustained our promises and the Labour party would be ill-advised to make new promises that it cannot keep.
Tonight has been a valuable opportunity to discuss the many issues involved in the welfare of children. This has been an important debate and I thank the Opposition for choosing to discuss the subject. The Conservative party is committed to children and they are safe with us. Our policies prove that we are responsible towards them and many of the Acts that we have produced recently demonstrate that.
9.13 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Last November I asked a series of questions and, over a number of weeks, pursued lines of inquiry about the sexual abuse of children. If we have been asked for plain speaking tonight I should remind the House that, in 1988, 13 people were charged with the murder of an infant under one year of age, 229 people were charged with cruelty or neglect of children, 56 people were charged with child abduction, there were 2,159 cases of indecent assault on a female aged under 16 and 320 cases of buggery with a boy under 16 or with a woman or an animal.
Tonight in the main line stations of this city many young people will come here lost and in need of advice. Many of them will have run away from those role models about which we have just heard—those very parents who should provide care and consideration for them. Many will be at risk from adults whose depraved tastes are such that they not only continually seek the company of children whom they seek to corrupt and attack but also continually seek access to child pornography.
In 1992 the gates of our country will be opened to even more child pornography under the name of freedom of
718
trade. What do the Government intend to do about that? What do they intend to do about the work of the interdepartmental committee about which the Minister has spoken and which is carrying on day by day? What results can they offer us in the encouragement of police forces to set up specialised units to deal with child pornography, and with attacks on children and in providing proper resources and proper back-up forces? There is no point in blaming a police force which is undermanned and under attack because of the amount of money that it requires from local authorities if the Government are not prepared to treat this matter seriously.
I asked for a programme of the work of the interdepartmental committee because I wanted to see what had happened since November about the work that is so essential. I looked at many of the studies that are being undertaken and I was horrified by the tiny amounts of money that are being allocated. Professional intervention in child abuse rates £23,000. Intervention in child sexual abuse rates £225,000. In the list of subjects to be considered I found under the heading of
"Feasibility of a prevalence study"
the news that
"This will examine the feasibility of a study to provide reliable estimates of the scale of sexual abuse of children in England and Wales."
Parliament does not know how many children are being abused day after day and night after night. We come here and trot out cliches about role models and caring Governments, but Parliament has no access to the information that would enable it to decide where to send money or where to provide facilities. We do not have enough social workers or trained teachers and we are even losing many people from our police forces whom we will need to deal with the abuse of children that is becoming a real danger every day of the week.
When we go away this subject will disappear, but abused children will not. The House requires better of the Government than a simple listing of amounts of money. Every voluntary organisation in the land is committed and we know that people of good will exist. How can the Government answer not just to hon. Members but to the people who elected them by saying, "We mean well and we are committed to a general good idea of parental authority. Unfortunately, we have no intention of spending money, time or effort to do anything to protect those who are most at risk"?
9.17 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Opposition are to be congratulated on giving us at least a half-day debate" because it gave the Minister a chance to put forward a robust explanation of the Government's policy towards children and the family. That is now on the record and will give great heart to Conservatives throughout Britain who are concerned about these issues and worried about the efforts of the Government. I congratulate the Minister on showing how co-ordinated those efforts are, not only in their scope but in the way that they are beginning to interrelate.
Many of us who were worried about family matters and their relationship to children were perhaps under the impression that policy had not been carefully thought through, but, clearly, we are out of date and the Minister is ahead of the game. In that context I look forward to the

719
winding-up speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security who I know has been putting in a great deal of effort on these matters in the Department.
There is no difference between the Government and the Opposition in terms of our genuine concern for children. There is also no difference in our understanding that the Government have a clear role in dealing with problems. We have heard about the many measures that the Government have brought forward. The difference seems to lie in understanding what the voluntary sector can do. Some Opposition Members have shown not so much a disdain for voluntary organisations but a concern that the work that they do is not being undertaken by the Government. I think that it is a positive virtue that it is being done by voluntary organisations, which have skills that are specifically related to the task that they are undertaking. These organisations are the closest to the problems. I welcome their work——
Ms. Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: No. I have little time to make my speech. If more time were available to me, I would willingly give way.
The reality is that voluntary organisations are doing excellent work. I am sure that all of us have connections with them and that we would all like to cite what they are doing. Recently, I came across the National Playing Fields Association and its mean streets campaign. It is an excellent way of highlighting some of the problems that arise in urban areas and an example of the effective way in which a voluntary organisation can work with local and national government.
There is no doubt that the Government have spent record sums on many of the areas of concern to which attention has been drawn tonight. The Government have produced the Children Act 1989, which provides an important legal framework. However, the welfare of children is not confined to state or Government intervention. Our concern must focus also on parental responsibility and family values. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has talked eloquently about parental responsibility, and that is a central consideration. The Government have a role in protecting and developing the child and his environment, but they cannot be a substitute for the family. Therefore, we should judge the Government's role and the scope of their policy by how well they create conditions that encourage family life and remove obstacles to the betterment of that life.
It is with great sadness that all of us have noted figures that show that the background against which teenagers are growing up is of considerable concern. Some of the statistics are worth recounting even if they are known to hon. Members. We know that one in three marriages ends in divorce and that the divorce rate in Britain is one of the highest in Europe. Births outside marriage account for 25 per cent. of all births. The number of lone-parent families in receipt of income support is about 725,000. That is the latest figure in my possession. These are worrying statistics. The Government are not to blame for them, but the important consideration is how they react to them. Also important is the change in moral values within society.
720
Homelessness has rightly been mentioned, because it affects children. It is interesting that 43 per cent. of those who are classified as homeless cite as the cause of their plight the break-up of family life and the lack of ability or willingness of the family to accommodate them. Another 17 per cent. cite the breakdown of a relationship with a partner as the cause of homelessness. This background is important to the way in which our children develop and the way in which they begin to learn to face the world.
The Government are tackling the issues, and various figures have been mentioned. It is important to note that £10 billion will be spent in 1990–91 on a range of benefits for the family. That is an increase of 25 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is to be compared with a net decline under the last Labour Government—this is in real terms of course—of over 8 per cent. That justifies the Government's confidence that we are doing our best. Further efforts are being directed to the homeless to try to hold families together. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has announced a specific scheme that will target directly several millions of pounds to agencies such as the citizens advice bureaux and SHAC. That is important because they can give on-the-spot counselling to enable families to stay together and perhaps reduce the likelihood of children leaving their homes and becoming homeless.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security will draw attention to the fact that we are targeting income support directly at those who are the poorest. I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) says about child benefit. She made a powerful contribution which was based on great experience. The problem with child benefit is that, even if it were increased, it would not benefit those receiving income support.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It gives the mother a little independence.
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is certainly a person of great independence. I do not challenge that, but I believe that the Government are right to target income support rather than increase the more general provision of child benefit.
The Government are beginning to do the right thing in other areas of child welfare and parental responsibility. Although at least one Opposition Member objected to the Government's efforts to make parents more responsible for the behaviour of juveniles, I believe that they are generally welcomed. I go further, and suggest that parents should also serve a period of community service, rather than just make juveniles perform that obligation.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury recently announced that the Inland Revenue will provide the private addresses of parents to enable the Department of Social Security to chase up those who should be making maintenance payments—such as the husbands of women who are still bringing up their children.
Sadly, our debate on this important subject has been too short. Parental responsibility is a vital factor. Unless the Government encourage parents to take more responsibility for their children, no amount of legislative measures will by themselves be effective. The present Government have a fine record. We must build on it to

721
ensure that parents play their part in a partnership that will make certain that our children will grow up in a better and safer world.
9.26 pm
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: In the few minutes available to me, I shall draw the attention of the House to a particular group of children about whom I have grown increasingly concerned in recent months. I refer to children in care. Contrary to popular belief, the concept of taking children into care and thereby affording them a degree of protection that has hitherto been missing from their lives is all too often no more than a myth. I do not mean to disparage the efforts of the many dedicated social and care workers, and the people who run our children's homes to the very best of their abilities, in attempting to provide a reasonable life for youngsters who have invariably had a difficult start. However, I am increasingly drawn to the conclusion that many children's homes are unloving, brutal places—and I do not use those words lightly.
Repeated complaints by children in care have been ignored over the decades, for a variety of reasons. When children are placed in care, they are sometimes put at greater risk than had they remained at home. One hon. Member remarked that all too often a social worker intervenes too late. I should like to be certain that, when a social worker intervenes, and when a child is taken into care, the provision made for that child is better than that which it left behind.
Dr. Michael Lindsay is a children's rights officer in Leicester who works also for an organisation called Voice for the Child in Care. Earlier this year, he wrote to draw my attention to some of the work that he has done in investigating 30 cases in which inquiries were made into the conduct of the staff of certain children's homes over a 10-year period. Those were just the cases that came to light following intense pressure—usually from the media. Dr. Lindsay has, like me, reached the conclusion that one is dealing not with a number of isolated incidents involving particular offences but a trend that is endemic in children's homes.
Children's homes are, for a variety of reasons, forced to employ people who have not been properly vetted, and who do not have the skills necessary for dealing with the sometimes very difficult children who are brought to them for care and attention. The children who are easiest to look after are usually fostered or adopted. It is the most difficult children who remain in institutions.
In Greenwich, two investigations into local children's homes have produced frightening results. In one case, the local ombudsman was the final resort for the children in question, after previous inquiries had whitewashed complaints. The ombudsman's report said that there was an
"almost total lack of professionalism"
among senior staff. Talking about the experience of one girl, the report said:
"Whatever innocence or childhood she had left was lost … This may well have affected her future life and her ability to form relationships".
Physical, sexual and emotional abuse were highlighted, as well as bad language by staff, under-age drinking and sexual relationships between staff and children.
I know that the pressures on time mean that I cannot develop the argument that I would wish to make for a better review of the situation of children in care, including
722
independent access for them to make complaints. I ask the Minister to consider initiating a serious study into the experiences of children currently in care and those who have been left in care.
Before I came to the House, I was involved in a number of such projects on other subjects commissioned by the Central Office of Information. A thorough and professional study would shock the nation into the action which is so long overdue.
9.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): This has been a wide-ranging debate of great interest and importance to the House. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) for giving the House the opportunity to debate these issues. Her interest in the welfare of children is well known and has been demonstrated over the years.
I shall respond to as much as possible of what has been said, although time will not allow me to speak on all the main issues raised.
With reference to health and those matters specifically connected with the Children Act 1989, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who opened the debate so skilfully, has been present throughout most of it and will have taken note of the subjects raised. We will both ensure that matters which concern other ministerial colleagues are referred to them.
I shall briefly mention some of the excellent contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) gave her usual spirited defence of Lancaster health authority. I am sorry that she is not in her place—[HON. MEMBERS: "She is."]—yes, she nearly is. It is always a pleasure to acknowledge her enthusiasm for Lancaster health authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) again demonstrated his deep knowledge of the subject, and the experience that he has drawn from his association with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
I was impressed by some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), particularly on bogus social workers and what the public expect of social workers. I, too, have had long experience and association with social services departments and have been struck by the ambivalence of the public's attitude to what is required of social workers. It causes great difficulty and is something with which the Government, the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Social Services grapple, and it seems difficult to find a solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) gave her usual impassioned defence of parental and individual responsibility for which I thank her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) has taken a particular interest in the work of voluntary organisations on homelessness, particularly among young people, and I thank him for his contribution.
In introducing the Government's response to the debate I can do no better than refer the House to the 42 principles of good child care practice which underline the Children Act. I, too, find it strange that the Opposition omitted to refer in their motion to the Act and the 42 principles. The

723
Children Act represents the most comprehensive contribution to the welfare of children that has ever been enacted by Parliament, and the 42 principles form an excellent base for a children's charter.
Children and their families are important to us all. During the past decade the Government have sought to strike a balance between family autonomy and parental responsibility and the protection of children by the state, where that is necessary. We have emphasised the practical, in the belief—repeated only a few weeks ago by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office in a debate on the family—that the family is the basic building block of society. The aim of Government policy, co-ordinated throughout Government Departments, has been to emphasise the central role of the family in society.
The Government do not believe that part of their role is to develop grand social engineering schemes. However, they can and do promote the interests of the family by encouraging independence and choice while at the same time providing help for families who are unable to cope with the wide range of contemporary pressures that face many of them today. The vast majority of parents are able and willing to take their responsibilities seriously. It is curious that little mention has been made by the Opposition of parents' enthusiasm for their role. For those parents, who are in the majority, the Government, by developing a prosperous economy, have provided choice and independence. However, they must provide help for families in difficulty, for whatever reason.
Reference has been made to child benefit and the income levels of families with children. While responding to those points, may I make a few general remarks about the Government's social security policies. The House is already aware that in the coming year the Government plan to spend a record £55 billion on social security. That represents the third increase in real terms since we came to office. It amounts to £20 a week for every man, woman and child in the country.
It is worth bearing in mind the fact that because of the Government's economic policies—increased earnings, lower taxation and higher personal allowances—there has been a growth of £20 a week during the past year in the take-home pay of a married man on average earnings. Other tax changes, such as independent taxation for women, will also result in increased incomes for better-off families. For less well-off families, we have been able to direct specific help towards families with children—including lone parents—and the disabled through income support and family credit.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not only better-off families who will benefit from independent taxation. Pensioner wives on moderate incomes will now be able to count their part of the pension against their tax allowance.
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right.
For the less well-off, we have been able to direct specific help towards families with children, through income support and family credit. Family credit in particular provides a significant tax-free cash income, payable to over 300,000 low-income working families with children. The same families obviously do not benefit over a period,
724
which means that far more than 300,000 families receive help. The average payment is over £27 a week. In nearly every case family credit is paid to the mother.
To target resources on those in need involves making judgments about the needs of different groups at different times. It was no doubt with the need for flexibility in mind that when the Opposition introduced child benefit 15 years ago their legislation required child benefit to be reviewed but not to be indexed annually. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was considering last year's uprating of child benefit he had to consider all the circumstances, including the increase in average take-home pay and the fact that an automatic increase in child benefit would not help the least well-off families on income support and family credit because those benefits are adjusted to take account of changes in the child benefit.
Mr. Robert Hughes: How can the hon. Lady claim justification for saying that increasing child benefit does not help those on the lowest incomes on the ground that income support is automatically adjusted to take account of any increase? The Government are responsible for the regulations stating how much money people can keep. It is the Minister's responsibility and nobody else's if child benefit does not help those at the lower end of the scale.
Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman's intervention makes absolutely no difference to the point that I was making. Increasing child benefit across the board would benefit a great number of families who do not need that help, but targeting resources, as we have done, has increased help to less well-off families.
Ms. Armstrong: Has the hon. Lady read the report of the Social Services Select Committee about the impact of Government policy on the poorest families? Has she taken into account the problems that Government policies have caused to those on marginal tax rates who are doing much worse? Child benefit is the one benefit that would have targeted services to children and given them the livelihood that we know they need and deserve.
Mrs. Shephard: Obviously, I have read the Select Committee report. The fact that I am making a point about targeting clearly implies the Government's recognition that some families have not done so well as others. As the hon. Lady will know, there has been a distinct improvement in the interaction of tax and social security benefits.
Concern has been expressed about lone parents who have a particularly difficult time bringing up their children. Special provision is made for lone parents within the social security system. Unlike their counterparts in many European countries, if they are on income support they can choose whether to work and to do whatever is in their children's best interests. Many wish to work and about one third of all family credit recipients are lone parents. They receive the same rate credit as a couple, and one-parent benefit is disregarded in the calculation of family credit. The most lasting and worthwhile contribution that the Government can make to lone parents and their children, who we all agree may be vulnerable, is to ensure that the absent parent, usually the father, makes a realistic contribution to the maintenance of the children. The Government are doing that through their review of

725
maintenance and the across-the-board review involving the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the measures introduced in the Social Security Bill and the administrative measures which are already in force in our benefits offices.
Mention has been made of housing and homeless young people. As I have said a number of times in the House, there is no need for 16 and 17-year-olds to be without an income. I am astonished that Opposition Members should seek in any way to encourage young people to go straight from school into the benefit culture. The whole point of the change made by the Government was to discourage such a trend. We have made many adjustments to the interaction of YTS and income support in response to points made by voluntary bodies. We are also tackling in particular the problem of families forced to live in bed-and-breakfast hotels. It is clearly wrong that such accommodation should be used for families except in an emergency or for very short periods and that is why we shall inject £250 million over the next two years into schemes in London and the south-east aimed at reducing that need. Clearly, every effort must be made to reduce the tragedy of young people leaving home or care to end up walking the streets of London. We are looking closely at how our policies work together with a view to ensuring that appropriate assistance is available, and further announcements will be made shortly.
The Government have over the past decade consistently pursued a range of policies across Departments to improve and foster the welfare of children, in the firm belief that the family is the foundation of our society. Basic to that belief have been our economic achievements, which have improved the prosperity of the majority of families and have enabled us to help families who are less fortunate. The Children Act 1989 is the most comprehensive child care legislation ever enacted by Parliament. There have been significant increases in spending on education for children of statutory school age and the under-fives. We have increased spending on the family through social security benefits by more than a quarter in the past decade to nearly £10 billion. The Labour Government's shameful record shows that they cut that help by nearly 10 per cent. during their period of power. Those achievements are real and practical and they are happening, and I ask hon. Members to reject the motion.
9.45 pm
Dr. John Reid: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and one or two other Conservative Members said that it was a disgrace that a debate on the welfare of children had been reduced to half a day. That was both right and wrong. It was certainly never planned as anything more than a half-day's debate. I agree, however, that it is a disgrace that in 11 years of this Conservative Government the first debate on the general welfare of children had to be initiated by the Opposition, not the Government.
We have heard many proud boasts, but as we approach the last decade of the 20th century we now lag behind every other comparable modern democracy in the treatment of our young people from cradle to college. The hon. Members for Lancaster and for Southport (Mr. Fearn), my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and others mentioned child poverty and the Minister responded—it was the only part of the debate to
726
which she responded. There are more than 12 million children in Great Britain. For many—indeed, most—childhood is a happy and a secure time, but for millions, unfortunately, it is other than that. As we enter the last decade of this century, it is a tragic fact that almost 75 per cent. of families on benefit, many with young children, now have to borrow to make ends meet, that 56 per cent. cannot meet their bills on time and that over half have to borrow for large expenses or have fallen behind with debt repayments. We discovered recently in a pamphlet issued by Conservative central office that much of this poverty is "self-induced"—once again, a lecture from those who constantly lecture the shoeless of the world to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. That poverty is not self-induced, but it is often Government produced.
The Government do not need a crystal ball to see where their policies are leading. It is in their own books and those of others. A Policy Studies Institute survey has shown hat 50 per cent. of couples on benefit run out of money halfway through every week and that 60 per cent. of them lack a complete standard set of clothing—not a Picasso or a Porsche, but a basic decent standard set of clothing. [Interruption.] The reaction of Conservative Members does not surprise me. The poverty of people has always been a laughing matter for others in this society.
A MORI survey showed that 3 million people with children in their households are unable to heat their homes. The horrific impressions created by those independent figures are confirmed by the Government's figures, yet tonight we heard the usual lecture from the Minister, who told us that these factors are all relative. We constantly hear that poverty is relative. There is nothing like a philosophical discussion on poverty among those who have never suffered it. This shows, because in the same breath the Minister proudly boasted to us of the percentage increase in benefits available.
The Government may have missed something—the elementary point that percentages are also a relative term. One hundred per cent. of nothing is nothing. Even where the benefit targets are reached—often they are not—the benefits allowable for a young child do not meet even the minimum weekly costs of maintaining that child. According to objective observers, the minimum estimated cost of providing for a two-year-old child for a week is £12·17. The Government's income support allowance for that child is £11·75. The minimum estimated cost for providing for an eight-year-old is £16·82, but the Government's income support allowance is still £11·75. What kind of Government refuse to provide no more than 70 per cent. of the minimum cost for even the poorest families to raise an eight-year-old child? We must also bear in mind that all those benefits are now means tested.
The Government have targeted for gradual abolition the one universal, most effective and most important instrument for the alleviation of child poverty—child benefit. The Under-Secretary referred to the abolition of the uprating of benefit in a euphemism to which we have become used. She referred to it as last year's uprating exercise—an innovation for this Government. There have been three uprating exercises, but no uprating. Labour will restore those cuts in child benefit because that is right, just and long overdue.
Mr.Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddlesworth): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: I am afraid that I am restricted by the time. The Under-Secretary gave way several times, largely because she did not respond to the debate. I am trying to do that.
I must disappoint the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) on the question of child care and education. The United Kingdom has one of the worst records in Europe of state provision of child care. Despite the references made by the Minister for Health to provision by the voluntary sector, only Ireland and Luxembourg are worse in their state provision for children aged two and under and only Portugal is worse than us in the provision for three and four-year-olds.
Of course we welcome the tax concessions made in the last Budget for workplace nursery schemes. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been urging that for a long time. However, the Government should be under no illusions. The number of workplace nurseries is extremely small at the moment. Last year the Workplace Nurseries Campaign reported that there were only about 100 such nurseries in Great Britain, and only about 20 of those are provided by the much-vaunted private sector. More importantly, the care of children is too important to be treated merely as an adjunct to the flows and ebbs of the labour market. Child care provision is a litmus test of a modern civilised society. It should be a right in itself, not merely a means of ensuring a supply of female workers.
Almost half a century after the establishment of the National Health Service, social class still determines the chances of a child's survival. The Minister for Health referred to surveys and to falling infant mortality rates.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The standard of health care is determined by where someone lives. In Lancashire the average expectation of life is two years below the national average. However, in Lancaster it is a year above that. It depends on where one lives, as does the standard of education. It does not depend on social class.
Dr. Reid: To some extent it depends on where one lives, but to a much greater extent it depends on how one lives, and that includes housing and health. None of the Government's propaganda can cover up the overriding statistic that in the mid-1980s, 40 years after the formation of the NHS, babies of fathers in unskilled jobs were twice as likely to be stillborn or to die within their first year as babies of professional fathers.
The hon. Member for Lancaster made much of the pro-life movement. Life does not end at birth. If all British children, irrespective of class and social circumstances, enjoyed the same chances of survival, between 2,500 and 3,000 young lives would be saved in Britain every year. It is a scandal that they are not.
Mr. Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: Time is restricted, and I am trying to reply to the debate.
A lack of education in parenthood and pre-parenthood and an overstretched and underfunded National Health Service and deprived housing and social conditions contribute to the problem. I do not claim that there is a simple solution. However, the reality is that there is a direct link between deprived social conditions and ill health among children. One of the most deprived conditions leading to ill health is homelessness.
728
Hon. Members have heard that, of more than 122,600 homeless households in priority need in Britain, 18,000 had dependent children, while another 17,000 households contained a member of the family who was expecting a child. Eighty per cent. of those homeless households involved children or expected children. For older children the latest estimate suggests that 150,000 16 to 19-year-olds experience homelessness each year, yet the Government cannot even tell us the number of homeless children on the streets of the major city of Britain.
When we ask the Government for statistics on missing children they tell us to go to the Children's Society. When we ask them for statistics on the number of illegally employed children they ask us to seek information from the Low Pay Unit. When we ask them how many children are left in the streets of London they tell us to phone the Salvation Army. It is not just that the Government are ignorant of the facts; they are woefully ignorant of the facts and will do nothing about it. They have done nothing about implementing the Employment of Children Act 1973, yet we know that about 80 per cent. of children's employment is now illegal.
We have heard the figure of 98,000 missing children. We are not pretending that every instance results in a child being permanently missing, but we are saying that 50 per cent. of runaway children go missing more than once, 7 per cent. are estimated to have engaged in prostitution, and 20 per cent. are reckoned to be involved in drug abuse. It is an absolute shame that the Government cannot even tell us how many children are missing in any month and must refer us to the voluntary sector.
Child abuse has been well covered tonight by my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield, for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). No matter how dreadful, how distasteful and how horrific, child abuse must occupy our minds. Again, we do not suggest that there are easy solutions. Nevertheless, we need to save the most vulnerable children.
We do not pit families against children, but we assert that there are many circumstances in which responsibility must fall on the Government because the families of abused children have already failed them. With the Children Act, we have seen the acceptance of parental responsibility. When parental responsibility has failed, we, on behalf of society, must act. The Children Act was welcomed by the Opposition and we fully supported many of its aspects. But how can we expect the Prime Minister or the Government to take on board society's responsibility when we have a Prime Minister who, 60,000 years after the first settlements in the Mesopotamian valley, still does not believe that society exists, far less has a responsibility?
Reference has been made to the convention on the rights of the child. Why were we given no timetable for ratification, no information on 1992 and its effects on the employment of labour, and no indication of moneys being allocated to road safety? Of course we support and admire the voluntary sector, but, above all, the voluntary sector needs a Government who are committed to partnership in the protection of children.
Hon. Members pride themselves on being a representative assembly. We represent some of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged sections of the community. We have men and women—too few of the latter. Our membership includes disabled people, some of whom speak with great

729
experience and knowledge of the disadvantages faced by the disabled. We have our fair share of old-age pensioners. Some would say that we have our fair share of the unemployed as well——
Mr. Dickens rose——[ Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Dr. Reid: But there is one group in this country that has no voice and no vote. Children are the hope of the country and the backbone of the future of our country. The generations to come will judge that the Government have been lacking in their protection of our children.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 288.

Division No. 225]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dobson, Frank

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Doran, Frank

Allen, Graham

Duffy, A. E. P.

Alton, David

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Anderson, Donald

Eadie, Alexander

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Armstrong, Hilary

Fatchett, Derek

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Fearn, Ronald

Ashton, Joe

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Fisher, Mark

Barron, Kevin

Flannery, Martin

Beckett, Margaret

Flynn, Paul

Bell, Stuart

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foster, Derek

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Fraser, John

Bidwell, Sydney

Fyfe, Maria

Blair, Tony

Galloway, George

Blunkett, David

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Boateng, Paul

George, Bruce

Boyes, Roland

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Bradley, Keith

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Gordon, Mildred

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Gould, Bryan

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Graham, Thomas

Buckley, George J.

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Callaghan, Jim

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Canavan, Dennis

Henderson, Doug

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hinchliffe, David

Carr, Mike

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Cartwright, John

Home Robertson, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hood, Jimmy

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clay, Bob

Howells, Geraint

Clelland, David

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hoyle, Doug

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Corbett, Robin

Illsley, Eric

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ingram, Adam

Cousins, Jim

Janner, Greville

Crowther, Stan

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cryer, Bob

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Cummings, John

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kirkwood, Archy

Cunningham, Dr John

Leadbitter, Ted

Dalyell, Tam

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Darling, Alistair

Lewis, Terry

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Litherland, Robert

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Livingstone, Ken

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Livsey, Richard

Dewar, Donald

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dixon, Don

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

730

Loyden, Eddie

Reid, Dr John

McAllion, John

Richardson, Jo

McAvoy, Thomas

Robertson, George

McCartney, Ian

Robinson, Geoffrey

Macdonald, Calum A.

Rogers, Allan

McKelvey, William

Rowlands, Ted

McLeish, Henry

Ruddock, Joan

McNamara, Kevin

Salmond, Alex

McWilliam, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Madden, Max

Sheerman, Barry

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Short, Clare

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Skinner, Dennis

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Maxton, John

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Meacher, Michael

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Meale, Alan

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Michael, Alun

Snape, Peter

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Spearing, Nigel

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Steinberg, Gerry

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stott, Roger

Morley, Elliot

Straw, Jack

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Turner, Dennis

Mullin, Chris

Wallace, James

Murphy, Paul

Walley, Joan

Nellist, Dave

Wareing, Robert N.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

O'Brien, William

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wigley, Dafydd

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Patchett, Terry

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Pendry, Tom

Wilson, Brian

Pike, Peter L.

Winnick, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Prescott, John

Worthington, Tony

Primarolo, Dawn

Wray, Jimmy

Quin, Ms Joyce

Radice, Giles

Tellers for the Ayes:

Randall, Stuart

Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Martyn Jones.

Redmond, Martin

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bright, Graham

Aitken, Jonathan

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Alexander, Richard

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Buck, Sir Antony

Amess, David

Budgen, Nicholas

Amos, Alan

Burns, Simon

Arbuthnot, James

Burt, Alistair

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Butterfill, John

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Ashby, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Aspinwall, Jack

Carrington, Matthew

Atkins, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Cash, William

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Baldry, Tony

Chapman, Sydney

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Chope, Christopher

Batiste, Spencer

Churchill, Mr

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Bellingham, Henry

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bendall, Vivian

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Benyon, W.

Colvin, Michael

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Conway, Derek

Body, Sir Richard

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Cope, Rt Hon John

Boswell, Tim

Cormack, Patrick

Bottomley, Peter

Couchman, James

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Cran, James

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Critchley, Julian

Bowis, John

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Day, Stephen

Brazier, Julian

Devlin, Tim

731

Dickens, Geoffrey

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dicks, Terry

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dover, Den

Key, Robert

Dunn, Bob

Kilfedder, James

Dykes, Hugh

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Eggar, Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Knapman, Roger

Evennett, David

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Fallon, Michael

Knowles, Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Knox, David

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lang, Ian

Forman, Nigel

Latham, Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lawrence, Ivan

Forth, Eric

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Franks, Cecil

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

French, Douglas

Lilley, Peter

Gale, Roger

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Gill, Christopher

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Goodlad, Alastair

Maclean, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Gorst, John

Madel, David

Gow, Ian

Major, Rt Hon John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Malins, Humfrey

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mans, Keith

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Maples, John

Gregory, Conal

Marlow, Tony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Ground, Patrick

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Grylls, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hague, William

Mates, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hampson, Dr Keith

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hanley, Jeremy

Mellor, David

Hannam, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Miller, Sir Hal

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Mills, Iain

Harris, David

Miscampbell, Norman

Hawkins, Christopher

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hayes, Jerry

Mitchell, Sir David

Hayward, Robert

Monro, Sir Hector

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Morrison, Sir Charles

Hind, Kenneth

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Neale, Gerrard

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Nelson, Anthony

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Neubert, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Irvine, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Irving, Sir Charles

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Jack, Michael

Norris, Steve

Jackson, Robert

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Janman, Tim

Oppenheim, Phillip

732

Page, Richard

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Paice, James

Sumberg, David

Patnick, Irvine

Summerson, Hugo

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Pawsey, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Price, Sir David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Raffan, Keith

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Riddick, Graham

Thorne, Neil

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Thornton, Malcolm

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Thurnham, Peter

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rost, Peter

Tracey, Richard

Rowe, Andrew

Tredinnick, David

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Twinn, Dr Ian

Ryder, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Sackville, Hon Tom

Viggers, Peter

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Walden, George

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Wcester)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Waller, Gary

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Watts, John

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wells, Bowen

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wheeler, Sir John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Whitney, Ray

Sims, Roger

Widdecombe, Ann

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wiggin, Jerry

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wilshire, David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Speller, Tony

Winterton, Nicholas

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wolfson, Mark

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wood, Timothy

Squire, Robin

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Stanbrook, Ivor

Yeo, Tim

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Steen, Anthony

Younger, Rt Hon George

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Tellers for the Noes:

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. David Lightbown.

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the major programme of work in the child care and child protection field which the Government are overseeing and undertaking in co-operation with local government and the voluntary sector, backed up by the Children Act 1989, which will establish an improved court system for children and a new balance between public support of children within their families and action to protect children from abuse and neglect, and families from unwarranted intrusion by the state; and welcomes other initiatives such as the reformed system of social security which targets help more effectively on the least well off among families with children.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions
10.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 11 th May, be approved.[ Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members not remaining for the debate please leave quietly?
Mr. MacGregor: The order will give effect to the school teachers' pay and conditions document 1990, which sets out the rates of pay and conditions of service to apply in state schools in 1990 91.
The publication of the 1990 pay and conditions document will complete a process that began in September 1989, when I asked the interim advisory committee to advise on teachers' pay in 1990–91. As the House knows, apart from asking it to consider what general pay increase should be given to teachers, I gave it more specific remits: to look especially at ways of further increasing flexibility within the pay system, improving the career structure and helping local education authorities to tackle geographical and subject teacher shortages—giving special consideration to the problems in London—and to review specifically the pay of heads and deputies.
In my view, the committee has fulfilled its remit admirably and produced the third in what has been a series of excellent reports. The committee endorsed the thinking underlying the present pay structure—[Interruption]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members either to listen to the debate or to continue their conversations outside the Chamber.
Mr. MacGregor: The committee endorsed the thinking underlying the present pay structure, and made recommendations intended to carry it even further into practice. It concluded that, although the recent improvements to the pay structure had all been in the right direction, more needed to be done to provide LEAs and governing bodies with sufficient flexibility to tackle the needs of individual schools, to reward responsibility and high performance, to respond to changing circumstances and to provide attractive career prospects for able and ambitious teachers, whether they want to stay in the classroom or prefer to move to senior management positions.
The interim advisory committee made far-reaching proposals for change: those are the words that it used, and I agree. Its report reaffirmed the value and importance of incentive allowances, and boosted their number and value. In addition, however, it proposed that LEAs and governing bodies should be able to enhance the standard incremental pay of individual teachers on the main scale on an annual basis, and that it should be possible to adopt and use a local extension of the main scale to enhance the pay of teachers on the top of the scale. It also clearly identified the need for greater recognition of differences in the circumstances of schools, and in the performance of individuals, in the way in which heads and deputies are paid. It proposed that the present system of spot salaries should be replaced by a system of range pay.
734
I received the report on 30 January, and announced on 1 February that I proposed to accept its recommendations in full——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desirable for county councils such as Lancashire to spend less on administration and to devote more to giving incentive payments to teachers, as my right hon. Friend and the advisory committee recommend?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall be commenting on that later. Under local management of schools, there is greater flexibility for schools to do that. Clearly, making full use of what is available as a result of the report is an important priority for LEAs.
I accept the report's recommendations in full, but decided to stage their introduction in the same way as for the review body groups, because of affordability within public expenditure totals for this year. It is worth noting, however, that by far the major part of the proposals will be implemented on 1 April—if the order is approved tonight and in another place—and some at the beginning of September. They will all be implemented in full from 1 January 1991. The overall cost in 1990–91 will be £620 million, and would be £733 million in a full year.
The speed with which I accepted the report clearly demonstrated my approval of the committee's whole approach and the Government's commitment to tackling with determination the issues of teachers' pay and supply. The speed with which we have moved since in terms of the consultation process and bringing the order before the House as quickly as we could shows that we are also keen to get the changes legitimised and in place for all teachers as quickly as possible. I know that some local education authorities are paying the new rates at the moment in the hope and assumption that the order will go through.
Section 3 of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 requires consultations with interested parties before the proposals can be implemented. I considered carefully the points made to me by the teacher unions and the employers, orally and in writing, and as a result have made a number of further minor modifications to the interim advisory committee recommendations that are incorporated in the draft document which accompanies the draft order.
They include placing certain deputy heads on a point higher on the new pay spine, which will give some 4,000 deputies an extra £300 on 1 January. The pay ranges for heads and deputies in small schools will be extended by one point. The six months qualifying service that entitles part-time teachers and teachers on short notice contracts to increments must be within one year, but will not now need to be continuous. I have accepted all those points in response to the recommendations made to me.
My acceptance of the interim advisory committee's recommendations means that teachers will receive substantial pay increases. By January 1991, heads and deputies will have seen their pay rise by up to 12·2 per cent. since March 1990. This will mean an increase of some £3,000 for a typical secondary head and £2,000 for a typical primary head. From 1 January, under the new system of range pay, local education authorities and governing bodies will have flexibility to recognise the demands of the job and the performance of the individual in the way in which they pay heads and deputies.

735
I believe that the changes to general salary grades have been sensitively handled by the committee and skilfully targeted. For new teachers, salaries will increase by up to 11·8 per cent. A good honours graduate will start on £10,503, or £12,003 in inner London. Teachers on the top of the scale will receive 8·9 per cent. There will be a further 14,400 new incentive allowances, bringing the total to 189,000 in primary and secondary schools. The value of the four higher rate incentive allowances will increase by 17 per cent.
That is not all. From 1 January, local education authorities and governing bodies will be able to award an incremental enhancement of up to £999 to any classroom teacher, provided that the value of the next incremental point is not exceeded. Local education authorities will be able to put in place local extensions to the standard scale and thereby raise the top point from £16,000 to £18,000. Overall, teachers will, on average, have seen an increase in their pay of 50 per cent. since March 1986 as soon as the proposals are fully in operation.
The improvements, used imaginatively and effectively, will mean better career prospects for good teachers, better matching of rewards with contribution and greatly enhanced scope for effective local decision taking. They will offer better rewards for the teacher in mid-career to whose needs the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently drew attention.
Mr. Harry Greenway: It is impossible to hear the Secretary of State say that teachers' pay has increased by 50 per cent. since 1986 without expressing real admiration. I am bound to think back to the years 1974 to 1979. In 1974, I received the Houghton award, which the Labour party has trumpeted so often as so marvellous, but it was lost within almost a year because of 27 per cent. inflation. We were all worse off in 1979 than we were in 1974 when Labour took office.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend speaks from knowledge and personal experience, and he is quite right. That compares with an increase in real terms of about 30 per cent. for teachers under this Government.
The improvements will also give local education authorities and governors much more flexibility to respond effectively to local recruitment and retention problems. In inner London, where the problems in some parts are especially acute, there will also be a new discretionary pay settlement of £750. I recognise, as did the committee, that the introduction of a more flexible pay system places particular responsibilities on local decision takers. There will sometimes be difficult choices to be made, but that is in the nature of a more local and flexible system. If local management is about anything it is about the targeting of resources where they are most needed and will do most good. I said that earlier, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It is the negation of good management to share out additional flexibilities according to Buggin's turn, and I hope that governing bodies and head teachers will resist such pressures and will not do that.
Pay flexibility and pay differentiation have a key role to play in improving morale and in tackling specific and local shortages. The new flexibilities will greatly increase the
736
capacity for local management to manage. They represent a real step forward in our ability to create and sustain the kind of teaching force that we need for the future.
I am glad to have the opportunity to pay tribute once again to the interim advisory committee for the clarity of its analyses and the force of its recommendation in pointing the way ahead. I am most grateful to Lord Chilver and the members of his committee, not only for the time and care that they devoted to their tasks, but for the skilful and clear-sighted way in which they assessed the evidence, analysed the issues and produced carefully worked out recommendations. It is a tribute to the committee that many teachers have told me that they greatly value the work that it carried out and think that it might not be possible to get such a good career and pay structure in place without the committee's work.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: My right hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the excellent work of the interim advisory committee. As a serving teacher for many years at the time when the Burnham committee used to operate, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that that system did not work well for the teaching profession? The new system and that which replaces it will work a great deal better. My right hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the members of the committee for their imagination and for the kind of report that they have produced.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree. There is widespread acceptance of the view that the Burnham committee did not work. I agree that the interim advisory committee has produced a much better structure and in so doing has skilfully carried out the remit that we gave it. The committee and the Government saw eye to eye on the actual needs, and I am grateful to the committee for that.
I shall now turn to the future pay machinery. Last December, in the debate on the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1989, I referred to the discussions that I had recently completed with the teacher unions and employers on new pay machinery. In the light of those discussions, I announced on 26 April my proposals for new permanent negotiating machinery. I have today held the last of a series of constructive meetings with unions and employers. However, it is clear from the meeting that there is still a great deal of disagreement about the way forward. I shall now consider carefully the best way forward in the light of the differing views expressed to me. It remains my aim to introduce legislation early in the next Session of Parliament.
The order clearly sets out the Government's position. We have made clear the changes in structure that we have been putting in place and are further addressing. They are major advances in a single year. What do we get from the Opposition? Since the Labour party is making such play of its new policy document, it is legitimate to look to that to see what Labour has to say. The document is not very illuminating. It says:
"As resources allow, we will ensure that teachers who make a long-term commitment to their profession are properly rewarded."
Precisely what does that mean? The whole point of the structural changes that we are making is to give greater rewards to those who make a long-term commitment, who take the key jobs and the greater responsibilities and who

737
demonstrate classroom excellence. That is the thrust of what I am saying and what the committee has been recommending.
I put two questions to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). First, what different structural changes——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member is not listening to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her intervention has made the hon. Gentleman concentrate.
First, what different——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Blackburn is still not listening.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is clearly anxious not to listen.
First, what different structural changes is he proposing? We have been specific and we look to see whether the hon. Gentleman is. Secondly, is he promising anything—I repeat, anything—in terms of extra money? Again, we look to him to be specific. If he is not promising anything in terms of extra money, we shall rightly conclude that his speech is meaningless and that he is only offering never, never land.
If the Opposition are to criticise the measures that we are putting before the House, no one will pay any attention to what they say unless we have answers to the questions that I have posed. I look forward to the response of the hon. Member for Blackburn. I ask the House to approve the order so that we can ensure that teachers have the 1990–91 pay increases which I have recommended.
10.30 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: Our education system faces an unprecedented crisis. According to the report of the senior chief inspector of schools which was published in February, one third of our children—over 2 million—are getting a "raw deal" from the education system over which the Government have presided for 11 years. Two thirds of all pupils in secondary schools, according to the report, have to learn in unsuitable accommodation. We are told that only just less than half the problems were
"adversely and seriously affecting the quality of work in one way or another."
Research conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research for The Mail on Sunday concluded that the education system was in danger of collapse, with parents
"providing a support system of nearly £40 million for primary schools."
The report states that without that many primary schools could not keep going. It tells us that
"most of the money is being used to fund the Government's new National Curriculum. One third of all money spent in schools on hooks and equipment comes from parents. Nearly one sixth of all schools surveyed are raising more money from parents than they receive from the State. A sixth are levying 'voluntary' contributions from parents."
Central to the near collapse—according to The Mail on Sunday—lies the condition of the teaching service. Never has morale in the service been lower. Never have fewer people wanted to train to teach. Never have so many teachers wanted to leave the profession. Never has the service been so overburdened with meretricious, divisive and ill-thought-out changes such as local management of schools and an inflexible national curriculum. Never has
738
there been a Government whose conduct of the education service has been so prejudiced and incompetent that it has reduced a once fine service to the point of near collapse.
The extent of the crisis in teacher recruitment, retention and morale is terrifying. The proportion of graduates entering teaching across the country has halved in eight years from 8 per cent. to 4 per cent. At Cambridge university, the number of graduates entering teacher training has halved in a year. In 1988, 83 graduates in Cambridge took up teacher training. There were only 45 last year.
Mr. James Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this evening the Opposition will vote against a measure that is worth £733 million to teachers? Will he tell the House what he would do were he in office? Will he tell us something about the contents of the Labour party's policy document?
Mr. Straw: Yes, I will tell the House, and I shall come to that point in my own time. I understand why Conservative Members will not acknowledge the extent of the crisis in education that they have produced, but they had better understand the near collapse, in the words of The Mail on Sunday, to which have they brought the education service.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose——
Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am giving the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members a few facts about the extent of that collapse and about the problems——
Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
Mr. Straw: I will, in a moment. I am giving the facts about the problems confronting teacher training institutions in recruiting decent graduates and other entrants.
According to the 2 May issue of The Economist, the London Institute of Education—the largest training institution in the country—managed to make only 17 offers for the 65 available places in mathematics; only eight offers for 20 places in economics; and 24 offers for 65 places in the sciences. As the Select Committee pointed out, 40 per cent. of those who enter teacher training fail to go into the profession even after four years, and half of those who do leave it within five years.
I will give way now to the Secretary of State, and perhaps he will tell the House whether he believes that those figures are a satisfactory account of his stewardship of the education service.
Mr. MacGregor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure of £40 million of parental support that he gave—if it is correct—is less than 1 per cent. of the total that the Government and local education authorities are putting into primary schools? How can he possibly describe that as near collapse?
Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State's comment only shows how ignorant he is of the state of Britain's schools. The report to which I referred was written not by the Labour party but by the National Foundation for Educational Research for a Conservative newspaper, The Mail on Sunday. If the Secretary of State does not believe that report, he had better look at previous reports of the senior chief inspector, who pointed out in last year's report

739
that many schools receive more by way of income from parents than by way of capitation for books and equipment from local education authorities.
Mr. Robert Key: That is a wonderful thing.
Mr. Straw: That situation is the responsibility of the present Government.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A Conservative Member described the increasing parental contribution to the essential needs of schoolchildren as "wonderful". Is it not in order for the House to know which Conservative Member made that remark?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mr. Straw. [ Laughter.]
Mr. Straw: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who made that remark will admit to it, if he has the guts to do SO.
It is increasingly difficult to recruit both the number and quality of entrants required to teacher training colleges.
Mr. Key: It was indeed I who said that it is wonderful that parents are contributing to schools.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Confession time is over. That is sufficient. Let us return to the debate.
Mr. Straw: This is only a short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that many hon. Members in all parts of the House want to contribute. I have already given way twice, so I intend to proceed as quickly as possible.
The latest report of the interim advisory committee says that morale is even lower than was noted in its reports of the previous two years. The committee noted that far more teachers are compelled to take second jobs—having to moonlight—than ever before. It also said that teachers' commitment to their job is closer to breaking point.
Faced with that crisis in our schools, with the culpable neglect of school buildings, with the neglect of expenditure on equipment and books, and above all with a gratuitous neglect of the education of our children, what is the Government's response? Is it to recognise the nature of the crisis? Is it to start to reward teachers properly? No—it is none of those things. It is to cut the real pay of teachers. Conservative Members had better recognise that by voting for the order they will be voting for a real terms cut in the pay of teachers. The authority for that comes not from me, but from the interim advisory committee report [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".]
When Conservative Members cry, "Rubbish", it only illustrates the level of their ignorance about the state of the service and about the teachers' pay for which they are voting.
In paragraph 4(3), the interim advisory committee said that even if inflation were to fall back to 7·5 per cent.—it is two percentage points above that—at the end of the financial year, as forecast by the Government, the majority of teachers will be worse off than a year previously, whatever happens in 1990–91. The order will increase the total pay bill by only 7·9 per cent. during the next year. Inflation is running at 9·4 per cent. Even Conservative
740
Members, with their inadequate education, will understand by the comparison of those two figures that a real cut in pay will result from the order.
The Secretary of State has made much play of the suggestion that he is implementing the report in full. That is incorrect. He is delaying implementation of an inadequate report. He has said almost nothing about the fact that he is phasing in its implementation. His predecessor did not do that with the two previous reports.
The Secretary of State did not mention the fact that the additional cost of the report, over the cash limit of £600 million—an extra £20 million—will be borne, according to an answer which he gave me on 7 March, entirely by local education authorities, with the Government paying not a penny piece towards it. That was the nature of his answer. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to explain how, if he is accepting the report, he does not accept responsibility for paying for the whole of it. We judge the Government by their deeds, not by the vacuity of their words.
The Secretary of State also did not address the fact that the cash limit was wholly inadequate. He asked me what we would have done. We would have ensured that there were negotiations between teachers and employers. Secondly, if we had inherited an interim advisory committee, or some such body, we would not have tied its hands or put it in a straitjacket before it started to consider teachers' pay and imposed upon it a prior cash limit of £600 million, which it says is inadequate.
What we would have done, and what the Select Committee recommended by saying that there should be more money for teachers, would be either to have allowed free negotiations between teachers and their employers, or had a review body of this kind, which would make a recommendation to the Government without a prior cash limit. The one absolute guarantee that I give is that we would not have presided at any stage over real cuts in teachers' pay. Teachers know that from our record—from Houghton and from Clegg.
As ever, the Secretary of State produced his ritual incantation of fiddled figures which allege that teachers have never had it so good, and how wonderfully teachers' pay has increased since 1986, when large increases were forced out of the Government after two years of industrial action after their pay had been declining for years.
If the Secretary of State were to examine graphs A and B in the Select Committee report, he would notice two things. First, since 1986, under the wonderful interim advisory committee system teachers' pay has only remained stable in real terms and is now declining in real terms. Secondly, if the Secretary of State examines graph B in the Select Committee's report he will see, above all, how severely teachers' pay has declined, compared with other groups.
It is extraordinary that Conservative Members of Parliament should be so blind to the workings of the labour market in which people make job decisions not just on absolute levels of pay but on what they are likely to get elsewhere.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No.

741
I understand why Conservative Members do not want to acknowledge that by means of the order they will be cutting teachers' pay.
No one has ever gone into teaching for the money. In the past, however, teachers expected, and received, remuneration that was more reasonable compared with other groups. They also enjoyed the non-financial rewards of the respect and esteem of the wider community. But during the past 11 years Conservative Ministers and Members of Parliament have systematically insulted and abused teachers; they have undermined public confidence in teachers and their own confidence in themselves.
Mr. Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No.
Conservatives have done that for 10 years. The Secretary of State for Education and Science was put into his job to try to repair the damage caused by his predecessor. Until last week he tried to avoid abusing and insulting teachers, but when he stood up to deliver a keynote address at the National Association of Head Teachers conference last week, half-way through he departed from his carefully prepared text, designed to placate head teachers, and insulted and abused teachers by suggesting that they should regard themselves as small business men and that schools should turn themselves into some kind of corner shop. I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates the damage that he has done to himself in the eyes of head teachers.
Mr. MacGregor: I was there. I saw that many of them undertstood the point that I was making. The hon. Gentleman's misrepresentation of what I said is utterly grotesque. I said that other groups, such as small businesses, which I know well, had to respond to substantial changes by working long hours, taking risks and facing difficulties. That was my point, and it was understood by the audience.
Mr. Straw: That was exactly the point that the Secretary of State made, and it went down like a lead balloon at the NAHT conference. It is crass in the extreme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]. I shall tell Conservative Members why it is crass in the extreme to imply that schools can be compared with small businesses. Small businesses face severe difficulties because of the Government's economic policies. More businesses are going bankrupt than has happened for many years. Teachers and parents are suspicious of the Government's motives. They believe that the Government are trying to establish a two-tier system under which market forces will operate, with children being treated like commodities. The Secretary of State's speech to the NAHT conference, as many people have told me, confirmed their suspicions. It is because of those suspicions that support for the Government's education policies has collapsed severely during the past three years while support for Labour's policies has increased.
It is well known that, whatever Ministers may say about the excellence of their administration of the state education system during the past 11 years, it is still not good enough for them to use.
Mr. Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is not a Minister. It may be good enough for other people's children, but it is certainly not good enough for the generality of Ministers' children.
Mr. Key: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to mislead the House, but he is doing so. Many Conservative Members, including myself, use their local state schools.
Mr. Straw: As The Sunday Times, another Conservative newspaper, pointed out, the overwhelming majority of Conservative Ministers have sent and continue to send their children to private schools. What reveals the appalling double standards of those Ministers and the Government is that, while forcing down the real pay of teachers in the maintained sector and the budgets of local education authorities which pay those teachers, the Government are increasing the state subsidy to private schools to enable them to pay salaries greatly in excess of those allowed by law to be paid in the maintained sector.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No.
The clerk to the governors of Dulwich college wrote to parents in March this year explaining why the fees at the school were to be increased to £4,035 per annum. He said:
"Education … is labour intensive, and salaries and wages … are increasing at a greater rate than RPI … The importance of attracting and retaining staff of the highest calibre means that proper levels of salary must be paid, also reflecting the high costs of living in the area."
He then confirmed that fees were to be increased to £4,035.
That would be okay if those fees were being paid entirely by parents. But for 277 children at that school the fees are being paid, in whole or in part, by the Government. The Government have agreed to pay those fees without any cavilling. On the one hand the Government are paying fees of £4,035 per pupil to Dulwich college to enable it to pay its teachers much more than the salaries that they could command in the state system, while on the other the Secretary of State has connived at the poll tax capping of Rochdale, Doncaster, Wigan and Calderdale—all authorities that are paying less than £1,800 per pupil per annum.
The education of the nation's children depends above all on the quality and dedication of its teachers. The Government have systematically undermined and under-rewarded teachers while imposing more demands on them. In the debate which preceded this one, the Minister of State for Health said grandiloquently at the beginning of her speech that our children were our future and that we owed them a most sacred trust. That is certainly true, but the Government have broken faith with our teachers and in doing so have broken their trust to the nation's children. We oppose the motion. We want better pay for our teachers because we want a better education for our children.
10.52 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was even more negative than usual tonight. He made no mention of what his party would do about teachers' pay. He said only that some teachers who made long-term commitments to the profession would be properly rewarded if resources allowed. At no time did the hon. Gentleman say what those resources would be. I hope that those teachers who read our deliberations will take on board the fact that Opposition Members will not put a figure on what they would pay the teaching profession. They have left an enormous vacuum surrounding teachers' pay.
I come to tonight's debate with a feeling of some nostalgia as it is likely to be the last of its kind. The interim advisory committee is soon to be replaced by the new permanent pay negotiating machinery announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The debate gives us the opportunity to see how teachers' pay has increased under the interim advisory committee. Its recent recommendations would add a total of 9·3 per cent. to the teachers' pay bill in a full year. The cost for 1990–91 will be almost 8 per cent. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that means that teachers' pay will have increased by about 50 per cent. since 1986. My hon. Friends will agree that that is a substantial increase in anyone's language.
Despite that substantial increase, I am still far from convinced that teachers' pay accurately reflects their important role in society. The education of our children and young people is of the utmost importance. I remind the House yet again that the overwhelming majority of teachers are dedicated both to their profession and to the children in their charge. That answers the question posed by the hon. Member for Blackburn, who accused us of undermining and denigrating teachers. At no time have we done that.
Mr. Straw rose——
Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way. We recognise the importance of the teacher in the classroom. Now I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that no Conservative Member has ever denigrated teachers. Will he explain why the present Secretary of State for the Environment, when Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, made a speech—which is in the Library—entitled, "Teachers encouraging a yob society"?
Mr. Pawsey: If that quotation is accurate, I think that that was a reference to some of the recent scenes at, for example, teacher conferences, but I shall deal with that point later.
The House will be aware that the reforms introduced by my right hon. and hon. Friends will do a great deal to enhance the quality and standard of state education. We have taken on the great debate which was started by the Opposition. The difference between the two sides is that while they talked about it we have done something about it.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: I would not like my hon. Friend to think that the great debate on educational standards was started by the Opposition. It was started by the Council for Educational Standards.
Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that correction. I was thinking of the speech by Lord Callaghan in 1976.
The national curriculum, local management of schools and teacher assessment are all added responsibilities with which the teacher force must grapple. It is worth reminding the House that, despite our good intentions, despite our reforms, despite all our legislation, all that will be as nothing if we do not enjoy the full-hearted support and co-operation of the nation's teachers.
I come now to the intervention by the hon. Member for Blackburn. I am interested to see that, so much notice does he take of our debates, he is reading a newspaper.
Teachers are not always their own best advocates. The recent teacher conferences have done little to enhance the esteem in which individual teachers or the reputation of the profession is held. The spectacle of, for example, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers being howled down by his own militant leftists was disgraceful. Teachers must understand that if they wish to be regarded as a profession and remunerated as a profession, they must act as a profession. The public do not always see them on a par with doctors or architects, because doctors and architects seldom demonstrate with marches, banners and loudspeakers. Other professionals prefer to pursue their grievances more responsibly.
The Government are introducing educational reforms, and there is an argument that perhaps we are progressing more rapidly than some would like. We do not have to look far for the reasons for the reforms. We are anxious that improvements in schooling should be implemented with the least possible delay so that the maximum number of the nation's children can benefit and in the shortest time.
I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will agree that some of the reforms have been so carefully wrapped in red tape both by the Department of Education and Science and, especially, by local education authorities that the package of reform itself is in danger of being lost. I doubt whether there is a need for so many forms which take up an increasing amount of teacher time. The number of leaflets, pamphlets and booklets produced by the bureaucrats has tended to swamp the profession. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could reduce the weight of paper that is currently submerging the profession. I say that in the clear knowledge that he is already doing something towards that.
I welcome the recommendations of the interim advisory committee and I note that the pay bill will be £733 million more than last year. Incidentally, that is £133 million more than the interim advisory committee recommendation. That figure must reflect the greatest credit on my right hon. Friend. He has persuaded the Treasury to cough up an extra £133 million and that substantial sum reflects the greatest credit on his persuasive abilities.
Mr. John Greenway: Many of us had misgivings about the interim advisory committee three years ago. As my hon. Friend said, this may well be the last debate of this nature. However, does he agree that the

745
interim advisory committee and the Government have done very well by the teaching profession over those three years?
Mr. Pawsey: I would not quarrel for a moment with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. The interim advisory committee has done a splendid job and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to compliment it.
It is worth remembering that, under the interim advisory committee's awards, the starting salary for a good honours graduate will be about £12,000 a year in inner London. The awards will provide increases of at least 20 per cent. for teachers who are not at the top of the main scale. Above all, the committee's awards will be worth on average almost 10·5 per cent. for almost all 60,000 head teachers and their deputies.
The hon. Member for Blackburn clearly and totally misunderstands the problem and he misunderstands the challenge that is being put to head teachers. He seeks to denigrate my right hon. Friend's comments about head teachers and their work. He is wrong to do that. The additional money for head teachers reflects the additional importance of a head teacher's job under the local management of schools proposal.
I support LMS, and I believe that funding should follow the pupil and be pupil led. Pupils of the same age should attract the same resources, irrespective of the school that they attend. Heads are taking on a greater management role. Although that represents something of a departure, it will be a significant step forward.
Surely head teachers must know best what actually happens in their schools. They know who the conscientious teachers are and they know the day-to-day problems. They will be in the best position to do something about them. Therefore, it is only right that the additional management responsibility be recognised in the monthly pay packet.
The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the considerable concern about teacher shortages. I hope that the interim advisory committee's latest recommendations help to make the teaching profession more attractive to graduates.
Incidentally, it is noteworthy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Universities Funding Council asking it to take note of a planned increase in initial teacher training for the next three years. It is just possible that critics will say that planning is one thing and attainment is something else, yet it is fair to remember that recruitment to teacher training courses rose by about 8 per cent. in 1989. Teacher shortages are not all that common. For example, in my county of Warwickshire, the number of teacher vacancies in January last year was 31. In January of this year it was 25. To get those two figures into perspective, that is out of a teacher force of 3,677.
I welcome the statutory instrument and I certainly hope that it will encourage entrance to the teaching profession.
11.4 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: Before Conservative Members start shouting the Opposition down, it is necessary to put the record straight about the interim advisory committee. The Secretary of State always funks doing that. In 1987, his predecessor, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), found that normal trade union
746
and employer negotiations were not working out to the Government's satisfaction. He then did something for which the Government were rightly condemned by the United Nations body, the International Labour Organisation. I have made it clear on many occasions that there would never have been an interim advisory committee if the Government had not refused to engage in proper negotiations with teachers. No other western Government have refused to negotiate with teachers, trade unions and employers.
The Government then hand-picked a committee. It is a farce. There is no negotiating of any kind. That committee was imposed on teachers, and, even though the committee was hand-picked, its recommendations were not accepted by the Government. The Secretary of State is pretending that its recommendations were accepted, but he knows that they were not. He is offering less money than the committee wanted him to offer. The figure is miles behind inflation. A figure of 13·5 per cent. in real terms would be required to return to the 1987 position, and 14 per cent. in real terms would be required to return to the position that obtained in 1974.
When the Government withdrew teachers' negotiating rights—they have still not given them back—they committed an undemocratic action. [Interruption.] No amount of shouting at me can change that fact.
Meanwhile, the situation has become so serious that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently published one of its most important reports on teacher shortages. A whole section of that report is missing because we could not get it approved by the majority of Tories on the Committee, who prevented our minority report from being released for nearly a year.
The present Chairman is the second one, because the first was hounded out by the Tory majority on the Committee. That is a fact. I nominated the present Chairman, and my colleagues seconded the motion—the Chairman is present; he can tell the House—and they walked out of the room and did not return, even though we were to meet the Minister the next day. There are many things that we did not want in the report and many things that should be in the report but are not.
There is a growing crisis in the recruitment and training of teachers, and it must be taken into account. The problem is national, widespread, and inextricably linked with inadequate salary levels, bad conditions and scarce resources under this Government. [Interruption.] No amount of shouting will change that. I have heard the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends praising the head teachers, but they are talking rubbish. The speech made by Mr. Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, is the biggest roistering ever given to a Government by the head teachers, who for years have been the darlings of this Government, but who have now completely changed their opinions.
It was Mr. Hart who said that the teacher shortage was a "crisis", approaching a "catastrophe". Everybody that the Select Committee met used the word "crisis". Only one person said that there was no crisis—the senior official of the Department of Education and Science. My hon. Friends who served on the Committee are present and know that to be true, as do Conservative Members who have said the same thing themselves.
One of the three interim advisory committee reports that was praised stated:

747
"Any profession would be justifiably proud of the level of commitment on the part of teachers we have met during our school visits during all 3 years. However, commitment cannot by itself guarantee the success of the current reforms. It needs to be underpinned by far higher morale than we have found. Too many teachers feel that their efforts are under-valued by the Government, the employers, parents, and society generally."
In 1988, the interim advisory committee drew the link between proper professional levels of pay and problems of recruitment, stating:
"We are in no doubt that pay levels are the major factor."
The Secretary of State praises the committee but he does not carry out the policies that his own hand-picked committee suggests to put teachers' pay levels right.
Surely it is now clear that teachers know that they are grossly underpaid. Let us have no nonsense about it. They know it and are miserable about it. They are overworked. They have to attend endless meetings, during their lunch hours and after school. They have to be at school earlier than ever before and have to spend endless more hours marking. Their morale is at its lowest ever ebb. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) can laugh and laugh—[ Laughter.] Indeed, he cannot stop laughing, but the reality is that——
Mr. John Marshall rose——
Mr. Flannery: No, I shall not give way, because there is so little time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be called. Indeed, he has received a lot of fame in the past few days on College green—[Interruption.] Well, not about education.
There are vacancies in schools throughout the country. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) must know that he was talking rubbish. What he said is not true. Where 20 people used to apply for a job in a school, now only one or two people may apply. The hon. Gentleman said that he likes local management of schools, but I must advise him that teachers are now learning what it is really like. In addition to the existing teacher shortages, local management of schools is adding to the problems. For example, one school in my constituency was £18,000 short last year and now has to sack either one or two teachers. Often the teachers who are sacked to save money are the most expensive teachers—those who have been teaching for a long time, and the very ones who are so urgently needed if we are to raise standards.
In addition to the teacher shortage that our Select Committee report sought to remedy, unless something is done, we will lose teachers because of LMS. I have heard the Secretary of State trying to explain that away. People who do not understand the issues might accept his explanations, but those of us who do understand know what rubbish the right hon. Gentleman is talking. The teachers are all aware of that—they have all sized him up—yet the right hon. Gentleman still follows his predecessor's footsteps, albeit fairly skilfully. They have done the same thing—they have made our education system into a terrible mess.
The position is worsening every day. Not only is morale lower than ever, but it is getting ever lower. All hon. Members know that that is what is happening, even if some of them try to pretend that it is not. The Government must recognise the growing damage that is being inflicted
748
on our children's education. Let us be clear about this: it is not their children. One or two Tory Members may send their children to state schools, but——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
Mr. Flannery: Be quiet, dear.
The Government are inflicting the damage on our children, not their children. They pay £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000 for their kids to go to special schools, yet they take thousands off our children while talking a lot of nonsense. That is what goes on and they know it, and I am saying so. As the shortages worsen, the Government further exacerbate them by LMS.
The poll tax will hit education more than any other area. Education is one of the biggest spenders of what were local rates. Again, it is our children who will be hit. It will cause hundreds of redundancies. It is as though the Government have a death wish for state education which they will work out.
The Minister knows that the Government have imposed a cash limit of £6 million on the IAC's recommendations for this year. The offer is only 7·5 per cent., yet inflation is 9·4 per cent. The Government said that the offer was against a background of the falling rate of inflation. They say that they are coming to grips with it, but it is heading up to 10 per cent. If the offer was low because of a falling rate of inflation, as it is rising will they please give the teachers much more money? The full award would be only 9·3 per cent.—still below the rate of inflation. How can that solve our education problems?
Even to return to the 1988 position, the figure needs to be 13·8 per cent. We have costed this. We do not have to wait for the Government's costings. They are never correct. They do not tell the truth. To bring the figure back to Houghton levels, we need 40 per cent. on top of the present offer. That is how much teachers' salaries have been eroded.
Education cannot thrive in such an atmosphere. It is bound to go downhill. We cannot recruit, retain and motivate teachers with such an appalling lack of insight and in the atmosphere that dominates the Tory party. Despite all the evidence to the Select Committee, the Government continue to believe that teacher shortages are hitting only certain subjects and certain areas. That is untrue. There is a shortage in all areas and all subjects. All six teacher unions met last autumn and gave the lie to that claim, and our Front Bench survey bore them out.
If the crisis in the teaching profession is not to deepen further and endanger our children's education, this Government, who see that their children have plenty of money, must release the necessary funds to make teachers' salaries competitive with those of other professions. The numbers will fall and we will have to offer more money to attract more teachers. The interim advisory committee and the Select Committee both asked for more money. [Interruption.] Has the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) something wrong with his right hand over there—yon Sherwood forester? I call him a Sherwood forester, but he would tie Robin Hood up and hand him over to the sheriff.
There is no other way to advance the great cause of our children's education. I appeal to the Tory party: if the Lady is not for turning, for God's sake, is there any among you who will turn and give us a decent education system?
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate, and short speeches are appropriate. I call Mr. John Marshall.
11.18 pm
Mr. John Marshall: The London borough of Barnet, which I have the honour to represent and where my children are being educated in voluntarily aided schools, is consistently producing better examination results than any other local education authority in the country.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiatives—on refining the national curriculum, on pressing ahead with the introduction of city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools—which will introduce variety, choice and flexibility into the education system—and on achieving greater flexibility in teachers' pay. Although I welcome that latter development, I should like the Minister to deal briefly in his winding-up speech with the need for more regional variations in teachers' pay. The Nationwide Anglia survey of house prices for the first quarter of the year shows that the average price of a terraced house in London was £88,470, and the average price of a semi-detached house £100,450. In Yorkshire and Humberside, the average price of a semi was £50,810, and in the northern region it was £49,590.
A teacher in the north of England can expect to obtain a mortgage of perhaps £30,000; a teacher in London has not a hope in hell with a mortgage that size. The average after-tax cost of a £30,000 mortgage is £327 per month, while that of a mortgage of £55,000—which is probably typical for London—is £669 per month, or an extra £85 per week. I ask Ministers to bear that in mind in future: unless regional pay is increased, a new north-south divide will develop. Teachers in the south-east will sell their London homes, making a large capital gain, and move to the north in the knowledge that they can enjoy lower mortgages and a higher standard of life.
We need still more flexibility. My right hon. Friend was educated at St. Andrews university, where the emphasis on market economics was particularly strong. Let me tell him that a shortage of teachers of French, maths and science is no reason to pay more to teachers of Latin or social studies. If teachers of "shortage subjects" are not paid more, the entire curriculum will be put at risk.
The status of the profession is, I feel, in the hands of the profession itself. No one has more faith in the profession as a whole than I have; a small minority, however, is putting the profession's reputation in jeopardy. A few weeks ago, I received a letter from my children's head teacher which said that because of action by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers the children would receive no schooling in two days' time. That is disgraceful. It merely aggravates the parents—especially mothers—who are inconvenienced. It interferes irresponsibly with children's education, and gravely damages the image of the profession.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others mentioned morale. In one section of the profession, however, morale is extremely high: I refer to grant-maintained schools. My right hon. Friend will remember paying a visit to Hendon school, the first grant-maintained school in London. Towards the end of that visit, a teacher approached him and said, "I am a member of the Labour party." I held my breath, wondering what would happen
750
next. The teacher went on, "The best thing that has happened to this school has been becoming grant maintained."
Tonight we have heard the Opposition commit themselves to doing away with grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and the private sector. What would that do for morale in the teaching profession? It would plummet to a new low. But that is what the Labour party stands for: it would do nothing for the education of our children, and nothing for morale in the teaching profession. Its proposed measures would be as productive as the abolition of the grammar schools. The grammar schools, we were told, would he abolished over Lord Wilson's dead body—and we all know what happened to them.
11.24 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The background to the debate is the present position in our schools. Some Conservative Members have referred to the professionals in the schools—[Interruption.]—not to mention the professionals in the Press Gallery. I have hardly started, but they are already falling apart up there.
I understand why some Conservative Members should discuss the experience of head teachers and in that context it is important to consider the letters that I received last year from head teachers in my constituency—a rural one with many small schools. Those letters referred to the distress that head teachers experienced in implementing the Government's reforms, and coping with lowered staff morale as well as with their loss of morale because of a feeling of lost status.
Occasionally a series of letters is sent as part of an orchestrated campaign to argue a particular case—often exaggerated to lend it more strength. I therefore visited each school in my constitutency to discover whether the possibility of resignations was real and to discuss the problems experienced.
Conservative Members are not prepared to accept that many teachers—not all—are suffering from low morale. A number of head teachers in my constituency have resigned citing pressure and low morale as their reasons. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has highlighted similar problems affecting the retention and recruitment of teachers. No matter how hard Conservative Members argue that that is not so, it is the reality to which the debate must be addressed. Whether the Government's response has been adequate can be judged by how well they resolve those problems. We must ensure that they are solved so that our children receive a proper standard of education and we have enough teachers in the future to provide an adequate level of education.
Whatever criticisms Conservative Members may make of the teaching profession, it is to them that we entrust the education of our children. It is fundamental therefore to restore to them their negotiating rights. Tonight the Secretary of State has again referred to his intention to restore those rights—not before time, although the blame for that cannot be laid directly at his door. However, on 5 December when the current system for determining pay was extended by a further 12 months the Secretary of State said:
"It is necessary for the present arrangements to be in place for one more year."—[Official Report, 5 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 271.]

751
Although he has expressed his intention to replace the arrangements, it is rumoured that another extension order will be introduced because a Bill introduced in the next Queen's Speech might not be enacted by 31 March 1991. Can he guarantee that that Bill will be enacted in time to ensure that there will be no repetition of this debate? In the face of international law and the expressed Government intentions, will such a Bill be enacted or are the Government already preparing for a repetition of this debate? I remind the House that the Select Committee said that teachers' negotiating rights should be restored as soon as possible and that new arrangements for determining teachers' pay and conditions of service should be devised to allow the 1987 Act to expire in March 1991 at the latest. The extension of the system that we have already had is deplorable.
It is not true that the Government are implementing the interim advisory committee recommendations because on 1 February the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that the Government proposed to accept the recommendations but that the introduction of the changes would be phased up to 1 January 1991. As a result, teachers will get increases that are lower than the rate of inflation. There is no point in looking at the result when in the process of reaching that result teachers will be worse off. That is in the face of recruitment, retention, and teacher supply problems. The interim advisory committee recommended not a phased increase but an immediate increase of 8·3 per cent. The Select Committee also said that the Government should implement the interim advisory committee recommendations in full and without delay. The Government are not doing that and that is directly increasing the problems in our schools.
The Government are not properly funding the recommendations. The IAC was given a remit of £600 million for its recommended pay increases. Its recommendation was for £733 million but, by delaying the increase, the Government will have to spend only £621 million this year. However, revenue support to local authorities was worked out on the basis of a pay award costing £600 million and the support grant settlement is not being revised. Once again, local authorities are being given a certain amount of money to cover a pay award ultimately imposed by the Government but are not being given the resources to pay for it. That is outrageous, especially when local authorities are blamed by Ministers for not being able to stay within Government targets.
Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: I shall give way in a moment, but before doing so it might be useful to reflect on what the Secretary of State for Education and Science said in a written answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw):
"The additional cost in 1990–91 of implementing the IAC's recommendations in the way I have proposed would be £620 million in England and Wales compared with the financial constraint set out in the IAC's remit of £600 million. The difference should not be an appreciable burden for local authorities given the scope that exists for savings across their services."—[Official Report, 7 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 627.]
That is ridiculous. All hon. Members know about the problems that schools have in finding the resources to introduce the national curriculum, local management of schools and all the other matters.
752
I defy the Minister to find extra savings. He cannot do it because the whole system is already built on the basis of savings by local government. The Government are not providing funding for the additional incentives recommended in the interim advisory committee report, such as provision for additional flexibility to increase pay, commensurate enhancements and ranges of pay points.
The Government have allowed local authorities no cash to achieve those things and that is completely unacceptable if the Government genuinely believe in what the interim advisory committee is arguing to achieve. Of course, the Government do not genuinely believe in what the IAC seeks to achieve. Teachers will be worse off under the proposals. Local authorities do not have the money to make the system work and once again the Government have managed to achieve a real cut in teachers' pay.
Mr. Barry Porter: Just so that the House may judge the quality of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, can he tell us what percentage of the teaching population in his constituency has resigned over the past year?
Mr. Taylor: I do not have those figures, and nor do the Government. However, not only have I received letters from teachers whom I do not know, saying that they are resigning, but friends of mine have resigned from local authority teaching. These are not mythical creatures. These are real teachers and real professionals who have given up because they do not have the support that they believe they should have from the Government.
11.35 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett: The backcloth to this debate is the same as that of all our education debates—the increasing crisis in our education system. It is known to all parents and teachers, and only Tory Members fail to recognise it. As the Secretary of State's speech showed, Ministers are complacent about the growing problems in our schools. If the Secretary of State wants chapter and verse for that, he has no better source than the evidence prepared for, and submitted by, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, chaired by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). That report contains detailed analyses of the teacher shortages, and what that means for the quality of education. Those problems are growing.
The Secretary of State will say that the Government have taken action, such as introducing bursaries for the shortage subjects. However, as the Secretary of State and the Minister of State know, even in the bursary subjects, the Government are failing to reach their target figures for recruitment. For example, in its figures to the Select Committee, the Department predicted that there would be a shortfall of nearly 30 per cent. in the number of technology teachers by the year 1995, yet this year, on the latest available figures for the number of teachers taking up the technology bursary, there is a shortfall on the Government's recruitment targets of nearly 25 per cent. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) should not shake his head, because those figures come from the Department.
The shortfall in teacher supply is getting even more acute, and on top of that, as the Select Committee report showed clearly, there is a collapse in teacher morale, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). It was, almost incidentally, recognised

753
by one or two Tory Members. That collapse in morale is not surprising. The Government have gone ahead with a whole range of reforms—wrapped in red tape, according to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey)—that were never based on co-operation and consultation with teachers. They went against the grain of teacher professionalism and only now is the Secretary of State realising that he needs teacher support.
The Government have introduced the local management of schools. Every one of those schemes that the Secretary of State now criticises, he sanctioned. Each one of them is producing problems in schools. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, we hear stories of teacher redundancies, and threatened teacher redundancies in so many schools.
The order will impose a cut in the living standard of teachers. The Government are presiding over a rate of inflation of 9·4 per cent., and are imposing on teachers a pay increase of 2 per cent. less than that. In other words, in their attempt to deal with the problem of falling morale, the Government are imposing on teachers a further 2 per cent. cut in their living standards. Furthermore, the Government have failed yet again to provide local education authorities with the money to fund the pay increase. Yet again, the Government will force local education authorities to make cuts in education services. Capped authorities will be forced to make cuts and to make teachers redundant. In authorities such as Barnsley and Calderdale the increase in spending is below the rate of inflation, yet the Secretary of State is prepared to take risks with children's education and see teachers made redundant.
The order is inadequate to deal with the problems that are faced by teachers and the education service generally. For that reason, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in voting against it.
11.40 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The debate should really have been about the interim advisory committee's report, which includes some extremely good suggestions and recommendations about teachers' pay. Much of this has been misrepresented by Opposition Members. The majority of rational people outside this place, having read what has been recommended and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, will say that everything that has been suggested is excellent and that the Government were right to accept it.
It was predictable that we would have much rhetoric from Opposition Members. There has been a great deal of gloom and doom and much talking up of a situation within our schools that does not need to be talked about in that way. It does not need to be discussed time and again. Our reforms are working excellently in the schools and we shall be seeing the results, which will undoubtedly benefit our children.
I am concerned by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I understand that the Labour party's policy review states that any changes made would be as resources allow. Yet tonight we have heard from the hon. Gentleman that any long-distant Labour Administration would give a completely open-ended commitment to the outcome of any sort of teacher negotiations or whatever mechanism that Government
754
had for settling or negotiating teachers' pay. That does not sit well for the taxpayer in future. Nor does it sit well with remarks that have been made by other members of the Opposition Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made an excellent speech. He rightly supported the IAC's report and rightly said also that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always includes in his remarks the admiration and gratitude that the Government have for the dedicated teaching force throughout the country. We believe that the work that it is doing to implement our reforms will add enormously to the value of education for our children. I can tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend has been working hard to reduce the amount of paper work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to the difficulties that are posed by regional variations. The IAC has drawn attention to the matter in its report. There are admirable flexibilities, but I hope that the matter will be further examined in any future negotiations.
It is right to say that the talk about teacher shortages is regional and could become worse. I tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that only this morning the Labour leader of the Association of County Councils told us that there were no teacher shortages in his county of Nottinghamshire. How does that square with the hon. Gentleman's rather sweeping remarks? It is extremely important to get the facts right.
We need less rhetoric and much more support for our teaching force throughout the country. We need more support from all who talk about education in this country. Above all, we need support for the order, so that we can implement the good increases and the changes and flexibility that the interim advisory committee has given us, to ensure that teachers feel rewarded—as I am sure they will.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 183.

Division No.226]

[at 11.44 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Brazier, Julian

Aitken, Jonathan

Bright, Graham

Alexander, Richard

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Amess, David

Buck, Sir Antony

Amos, Alan

Budgen, Nicholas

Arbuthnot, James

Burns, Simon

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Burt, Alistair

Ashby, David

Butterfill, John

Aspinwall, Jack

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Atkins, Robert

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Carrington, Matthew

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Carttiss, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Cash, William

Batiste, Spencer

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Chapman, Sydney

Bellingham, Henry

Chope, Christopher

Bendall, Vivian

Churchill, Mr

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Body, Sir Richard

Colvin, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Conway, Derek

Boswell, Tim

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bottomley, Peter

Cope, Rt Hon John

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Cran, James

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bowis, John

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Day, Stephen

755

Devlin, Tim

Lawrence, Ivan

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lee, John (Pendle)

Dover, Den

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Dunn, Bob

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Durant, Tony

Lilley, Peter

Dykes, Hugh

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Eggar, Tim

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Evennett, David

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Fallon, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Maclean, David

Fookes, Dame Janet

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Forman, Nigel

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Malins, Humfrey

Forth, Eric

Mans, Keith

Fox, Sir Marcus

Maples, John

Franks, Cecil

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Freeman, Roger

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

French, Douglas

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gale, Roger

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mellor, David

Gill, Christopher

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Miller, Sir Hal

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Mills, Iain

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Miscampbell, Norman

Goodlad, Alastair

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mitchell, Sir David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Monro, Sir Hector

Gorst, John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Gow, Ian

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Moss, Malcolm

Gregory, Conal

Neale, Gerrard

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Nelson, Anthony

Ground, Patrick

Neubert, Michael

Grylls, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hague, William

Nicholls, Patrick

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Norris, Steve

Hampson, Dr Keith

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Hanley, Jeremy

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hannam, John

Page, Richard

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Paice, James

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Harris, David

Patnick, Irvine

Hawkins, Christopher

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hayes, Jerry

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hayward, Robert

Pawsey, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Price, Sir David

Hind, Kenneth

Raffan, Keith

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

Riddick, Graham

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Hunter, Andrew

Rost, Peter

Irvine, Michael

Rowe, Andrew

Jack, Michael

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Jackson, Robert

Ryder, Richard

Janman, Tim

Sackville, Hon Tom

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Key, Robert

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Knapman, Roger

Sims, Roger

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knowles, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Knox, David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lang, Ian

Speller, Tony

Latham, Michael

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

756

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Squire, Robin

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Viggers, Peter

Steen, Anthony

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Stern, Michael

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Stevens, Lewis

Walden, George

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Waller, Gary

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Watts, John

Sumberg, David

Wells, Bowen

Summerson, Hugo

Wheeler, Sir John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Whitney, Ray

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wiggin, Jerry

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wilshire, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wolfson, Mark

Thorne, Neil

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Thornton, Malcolm

Yeo, Tim

Thurnham, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tracey, Richard

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Timothy Wood.

Tredinnick, David

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dobson, Frank

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Doran, Frank

Alton, David

Duffy, A. E. P.

Anderson, Donald

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Armstrong, Hilary

Fatchett, Derek

Ashton, Joe

Faulds, Andrew

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Barron, Kevin

Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

Beckett, Margaret

Fisher, Mark

Beggs, Roy

Flannery, Martin

Bell, Stuart

Flynn, Paul

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Foster, Derek

Bidwell, Sydney

Fraser, John

Blair, Tony

Fyfe, Maria

Blunkett, David

Galloway, George

Boateng, Paul

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Boyes, Roland

George, Bruce

Bradley, Keith

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Gordon, Mildred

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Gould, Bryan

Buckley, George J.

Graham, Thomas

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Callaghan, Jim

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Canavan, Dennis

Henderson, Doug

Carr, Michael

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Home Robertson, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hood, Jimmy

Clay, Bob

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clelland, David

Howells, Geraint

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Cohen, Harry

Hoyle, Doug

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cousins, Jim

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Crowther, Stan

Illsley, Eric

Cryer, Bob

Ingram, Adam

Cummings, John

Janner, Greville

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cunningham, Dr John

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Dalyell, Tam

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Darling, Alistair

Leadbitter, Ted

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lewis, Terry

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

Litherland, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Livingstone, Ken

Dixon, Don

Livsey, Richard

757

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Reid, Dr John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Richardson, Jo

Loyden, Eddie

Robertson, George

McAllion, John

Robinson, Geoffrey

McAvoy, Thomas

Rogers, Allan

McCartney, Ian

Rowlands, Ted

Macdonald, Calum A.

Ruddock, Joan

McKelvey, William

Sedgemore, Brian

McLeish, Henry

Sheerman, Barry

McWilliam, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Madden, Max

Short, Clare

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Skinner, Dennis

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Maxton, John

Snape, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Spearing, Nigel

Meale, Alan

Steinberg, Gerry

Michael, Alun

Stott, Roger

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Straw, Jack

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morley, Elliot

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Turner, Dennis

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Vaz, Keith

Mowlam, Marjorie

Wallace, James

Murphy, Paul

Walley, Joan

Nellist, Dave

Wareing, Robert N.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

O'Brien, William

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Patchett, Terry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Pendry, Tom

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Pike, Peter L.

Wilson, Brian

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Winnick, David

Prescott, John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Primarolo, Dawn

Worthington, Tony

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wray, Jimmy

Radice, Giles

Randall, Stuart

Tellers for the Noes:

Redmond, Martin

Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Martyn Jones.

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 11th May, be approved.

European Community Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).
European Community Documents

  MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4704/90, relating to motor vehicle emissions; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure an agreement on emissions from motor vehicles, taking into account the environmental benefits, the cost to motorists and the need to set a stable standard for industry.—[Mr. Fallon.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  CALDEY ISLAND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection:
  That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

  (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fourteenth day after this day, and

  (b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee.

  being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents:
  That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for a committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee:
  That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition:
  That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:
  That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  MEMBERS' INTERESTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Menzies Campbell be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. Andrew Welsh be added to the Committee.—[Mr Fallon.]

  ESTIMATES
  Resolved,
  That this House agrees with the Report [22nd May] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  PETITION

    Alcohol Sales
    11.57 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Reverend E. M. Scott, minister of the Church of Scotland's St. Andrew's church of Port Glasgow, the session clerks and 309 members or adherents of St. Andrew's. It is a petition which I both support and commend to the House.
    The petition is as follows:
    The humble petition of members or adherents of St. Andrew's church, Port Glasgow, sheweth that they are seriously disturbed and wish to express their deep concern over the possibility of the introduction of legislation which would permit off-sales premises to open on Sundays, and would, in their opinion, further increase the growing problem of alcohol abuse in country.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do note that the under-subscribed persons do hereby protest most vigorously against that section of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill 1990 which would permit the opening of off-sales premises from 12.30 pm to 10 pm on Sundays, or any other hour or hours on Sundays.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Brymbo Steelworks
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
  11.59 pm
  Dr. John Marek: I am pleased to have been selected for the Adjournment debate, but I am not pleased about my reason for requesting the debate. We are discussing the proposed closure of the Brymbo steelmaking plant with the loss of nearly 1,200 well-paid jobs in a manufacturing industry. Almost 40 per cent. of the products made at the plant are exported.
  Brymbo steelworks has a long history. John Wilkinson built a smelting works on the site in the 18th century. The first blast furnace began production in 1798 and since then steelmaking has continued until now. Only 10 years ago, in 1980, a new finishing mill was built at a cost of £48 million—which was a great deal in those days. Jobs have been lost since 1980 when more than 2,000 people were employed, but production and productivity increased and there are now more than 1,100 employees at the plant.
  As a result of the Phoenix II negotiations and their conclusion in 1985, a new company, United Engineering Steels, was formed. That company, which was heavily dominated by plant east of the Pennines and managed by people from that area, controlled nearly all engineering steelmaking throughout the United Kingdom. When the new company was set up it decided to spend nearly all the £60 million of Government money that it received on a concast plant at Aldwarke, and we knew at Brymbo that the writing was on the wall. However, now that the closure is imminent, the awful reality of what will happen around Wrexham and the village of Brymbo is before us.
  The area will become a complete wasteland as Brymbo depends on the steelworks. The proposed closure would affect not only those employed at the steelworks, but the bus drivers, the shopkeepers and the tradesmen. The viability of the entire community would be wiped out at a stroke. Well-paid jobs would disappear and no one can pretend that any redevelopment could compensate for them. There would be other jobs, but they would not be well paid.
  That would be undesirable but understandable in a mixed market economy if the steelworks were making a loss. It could be said that if a country is to get ahead it needs to adapt and invest in new industry and that the steelworks had to close. Social services and counselling would be provided to assist in redeployment. We would all regret that, but we would recognise that it was necessary because our country can survive only if we make trading profits and increase our manufacturing productivity.
  However, that is not the case at Brymbo. The plant has not made a loss in any of the past 20 years and I suspect that it did not make a loss in many of the years before that. Last year it made approximately £5 million in profit. Up to 40 per cent. of its production goes to export. It is one of the most profitable steel plants in the United Kingdom, yet it faces closure.
  It is not surprising that the United Kingdom is on the decline, that countries such as France are pulling ahead and that Germany is more powerful than us in economic terms when we continually shoot ourselves in the foot by closing down our profitable, export-leading companies.
  Why does United Engineering Steels propose to close the plant? It can only be because UES is taking a close,

  761
  selfish view of its position and believes that it is easy to enhance its monopoly east of the Pennines. I do not want to say anything against plants east of the Pennines—they need to survive and make profits, and I wish them well—but they should not be making profits at the expense of plants, such as Brymbo, west of the Pennines.
  Is the UES management afraid of competition? It says that Brymbo does not have a long-term future, which is why it needs to be closed. If it does not have such a future, there can be no objection to UES selling the company as a going concern, should a buyer be found. That is a critical issue.
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt) indicated assent.
  Dr. Marek: I am glad that the Secretary of State nods, although I hope that I have not embarrassed him by pointing that out.
  If the plant has no long-term future, it cannot be a threat to UES. If it has a future, why close it? Brymbo can handle orders as small as 1 tonne. Such orders would not be filled by the plants at Aldwarke or elsewhere east of the Pennines, so there would be a loss of market share for this country.
  There is customer loyalty to Brymbo. A number of customers prefer steel made not by the concast methods but by the traditional methods deployed at Brymbo in the manufacture of billets. As Mr. Pennington, the former chief executive of UES and now the board member charged with deciding Brymbo's fate, said, instead of potentially taking capacity out of our United Kingdom plants, we should be seeking new markets in Europe and the world. He believes that the right way forward for UES is to do that and to increase production so that full capacity and full utility can be made of the plants in the Sheffield area.
  Mr. Pennington said that the market in engineering steels was not going to decrease. The current wisdom in some economic circles is that there is 10 per cent. overcapacity of engineering steels and that there should be contraction, but Mr Pennington does not believe that. His logic does not add up. Instead of taking away our profitable manufacturing capacity, we should expand, look for markets and sell Brymbo as a going concern or perhaps in a joint venture with some other partner. Closing it is not good for Wrexham, Wales or the United Kingdom. I have no doubt about that.
  I am pleased that, because of last weekend's events, Wales is now united in marketing Brymbo worldwide. The local councils and my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) are with me on this issue. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for sending in the Welsh Development Agency to decide whether Brymbo was viable. The WDA's chairman, Dr. Gwyn Jones, believes that it is. Brymbo is being marketed worldwide to find a potential buyer, and I know that the Secretary of State supports that stance.
  We have overcome that hurdle, but there are many more and it would be foolish of me to pretend that I am optimistic about saving the plant. We must find a buyer. I have no expertise in that matter, but I am confident that either Clwyd county council or the WDA, through their contacts and international expertise, will be able to find a buyer. Interest has been shown in taking over the steelworks. After that, there comes the most difficult
  762
  hurdle: we must persuade UES that it is not against its interests to sell Brymbo as a going concern. On its record, the plant deserves to survive.
  If we add to that the advantage of a steel-producing plant and the benefits that that brings to the people of Wales and in particular to the standard of living of people in Wrexham and consider the advantages for the United Kingdom in that 40 per cent. of its products are exported and thereby help our balance of payments, the case for the retention of steelmaking in Brymbo is unanswerable.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales agrees with what I have said. I do not want promises from him tonight because no one has unlimited powers and no one can make promises. However, the Secretay of State has considerable power. I hope that he will do his best and use his influence, if a suitable buyer comes forward, to persuade UES to sell the plant at a fair price so that steelmaking at Brymbo can continue.
  I would like the Secretary of State's help. However, more importantly the people of Brymbo and of north-east Wales want it in that endeavour.
  Mr. Barry Jones rose——
  Dr. Kim Howells rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Do the hon. Members who are rising have the consent of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and of the Secretary of State for Wales?
  Dr. Marek indicated assent.
  Mr. David Hunt indicated assent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Barry Jones.
  12.11 am
  Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad that the Secretary of State for Wales is present for this urgent and extraordinary debate. I support 100 per cent. the vigorous efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) to assist his beleaguered constituency and the community of Brymbo. I also support 100 per cent. the efforts of the Brymbo steelworkers.
  I very much regret that the decision to close the plant was taken by a small board far from the seat of production at Brymbo. That cannot be right and I deeply regret the decision of the UES board. The 1,125 workers, their families and the community face an uncertain future. Those 1,125 jobs are highly skilled and well paid. Most importantly for Wales, they are manufacturing jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, the jobs are important to Brymbo, to Wales and to Britain and its industrial future. If those jobs are lost, they will not be recreated in Wales. They cannot be reclaimed. Those jobs are vital to the industrial future of Wales.
  The board's decision is unacceptable. It represents deskilling and deindustrialisation at a time when we need more skills and more wealth-creating manufacturing industry. Our nation sees its manufacturing capability bleeding away. Brymbo would add to the disaster that we will face if there is any more erosion of our industrial base.
  The social impact will be severe. I am concerned about Brymbo, but I am also concerned about Llanfynydd, Ffrith, Cy Mau, Caergwrle, Llay, Hope, Penyffrid, Cefn-y-bedd and Abermorddu in my constituency. Those are small communities, but they all send workers to

  763
  Brymbo. The work force earns its daily bread at the plant. It is productive and it creates profit. It has been very loyal to the company and to the industry over many years. The proposed closure is a wretched and unwelcome reward for a fine steelmaking capability.
  I congratulate the steelworkers' leaders, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Jones and Mr. Bostock. The help of the Wrexham Maelor council has been superb. Again I praise the vigorous efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham.
  I blame the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. Their economic policies were so wrong that they have led to high interest rates which have destroyed domestic and commercial budgets. Her Majesty's Government bear a heavy responsibility.
  The proposed closure will mean more imports of the product that Brymbo will cease to make. That will happen as the years roll by. Also, there will be a steel desert in the north-west and in north Wales. I refer to the former production centres of Workington, Mostyn, Warrington, Manchester, Irlam, Shotton, and, as proposed, Brymbo. That cannot be good for north Wales and it cannot be good for Britain. I am one with my hon. Friend in seeking to stay this execution.
  I note from the House of Commons Library that steel strip imports have increased by about 67 per cent. since 1983. In that same period there has been a 103 per cent. increase in stainless steel and alloy imports. I warn that if the jobs go to the wall, there will be more and more imports. One of Britain's greatest problems is a terrifying balance of payments deficit.
  The decision by a board that is far away from Brymbo will add to the difficulties of our nation.
  I should like the Secretary of State to visit Brymbo. Indeed, I should like him to set up and chair a meeting of his agency, the company, the unions and the local authorities. I should like him to do that urgently, with the objectives of subjecting the company to the severest questioning and enabling the trade unions and councillors to talk to and question the company. Above all else, I ask him to redouble his efforts and, even at this late hour, to use the considerable powers in his armoury to help the people of Brymbo. If he does that, we shall support him.
  12.16 am
  Mr. Martyn Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who has been fighting all along for the jobs in Brymbo, for allowing me a few minutes of his valuable Adjournment debate to make some points about the wider implications of this matter for the people of north Wales.
  Many people work in the plants and bring money into my constituency and into that of my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members in north Wales. There are 1,100 well-paid jobs involved, and they are well-paid because the plant is profitable. However, it is being closed when it is profitable. As my hon. Friend said, closing an unprofitable plant is bad enough—it is unpleasant—but closing a profitable plant is obscene. It is the reality of free market Thatcherism taken to a ridiculous extent.
  I remind the Secretary of State of an article that appeared in the Daily Post, which states:
  764
  "On the eve of his first official visit to North Wales, Mr. Hunt said: 'As Secretary of State for Wales my commitment is to all parts of Wales in seeking to spread prosperity everywhere.'
  He intends to spend at least one day each week in North Wales."
  I am not sure whether he has done that; I hope so. The Secretary of State is further quoted as saying:
  "Over the coming weeks and months I shall be taking every opportunity to listen and to learn … I want to develop the most positive possible partnership with the Welsh people."
  Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that the refusal of the owners of Brymbo to allow some formula to emerge—a sell-off, for example—is reflected in many other parts of Welsh industry? For example, in the coal industry, British Coal has refused to contemplate the sale of mines that it proposes to close to companies that had made offers to buy those mines. What is happening——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must restrict his remarks to the matter before the House.
  Dr. Howells: I fear that what is happening in the steel industry at Brymbo, for example, is another case of the way in which decisions that are made elsewhere are marginalising the Welsh economy. Unless we sort this one out—I hope that the Secretary of State will address this matter—the problem will become more urgent and more prevalent——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the Secretary of State will address the matter that we are considering.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) for that intervention because, although he strayed a little from the subject, what he described is happening all the time. In fact, it is happening to a factory in my constituency. The James Seddon factory is being closed because of decisions made elsewhere, although it is profitable. My hon. Friend has made a valid point.
  I remind the Secretary of State that he is reported as saying that he intends
  "to ensure that North Wales does not lose out in the Government's drive to lure more job boosting ventures to Wales … Two hundred and ninety five important inward investment projects have come to Wales since the last election and there are many more in the pipeline."
  The article also reported that the right hon. Gentleman is
  "to lead a new effort to boost investment from Japan, Korea and France."
  That was reported on 14 May, the very day of the Brymbo announcement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take what has been said to heart and that he will not rue his words. If he does not keep Brymbo open, those words will come back to haunt him. I hope that they do not have to.
  12.20 am
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): The importance of Brymbo is demonstrated by the presence in the Chamber tonight of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts); my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis); and myself. I am also

  765
  pleased to note the presence of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Brymbo's importance is further demonstrated by the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), and by my many other hon. Friends who have stated their strong support for the community in Brymbo. I note also the presence of the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), to whom I shall return in a moment, for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who have both spoken, and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). Their presence demonstrates not only the importance of Brymbo but the fact that the issues that we are considering transcend any party political differences that we may have. I very much appreciate the spirit of the way in which all those who are involved in this difficult matter are working together to do their best to ensure a secure future for those employed at Brymbo.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham, with the local authorities, the communities and the steelworkers, has taken a positive lead in this. Together with the Welsh Development Agency and United Engineering Steels Ltd., they have all shown a willingness to co-operate which I very much welcome. That applies to all the political parties in the area, including the local Conservative party, led by Owen Patterson and John Myers. All the parties and all parts of the community have come together under the leadership of those involved on behalf of their community.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham has already given the House some of the history of Brymbo and has mentioned how United Engineering Steels Ltd. was formed in April 1986 as a company jointly owned by the British Steel Corporation and Guest Keen Nettlefolds. This joint venture, code-named Phoenix II, was launched at a time of severe over-capacity in the United Kingdom engineering steels sector. It was intended that Phoenix II would maximise the level of investment available and enable the company to match international competition. This project involved the Government providing £55 million in funds to BSC to subscribe in preference shares and loan stock in UES on the understanding that UES would undertake further investment. There were no conditions attached to the Government's funding in relation to the location of the investment.
  As hon. Members will know, the decision was made in June 1986 by the UES board to invest £60 million in a continuous bloom caster at the Aldewarke plant near Rotherham. I know that great disappointment was felt at the time—which I shared, as a north Waleian—that Brymbo did not receive this investment. However, UES stated that it had no plans to close any of its major works during the following two years. Thereafter, the future of all plants, including the steelworks at Brymbo, was said to depend on market opportunity. Over the ensuing four years, conditions in the steel industry have remained extremely competitive.
  Following the announcement by UES on the proposed closure of the Brymbo plant on 14 May, I arranged immediately to meet a delegation led by the hon. Member for Wrexham—I could speak to him that day because I was opening a factory and a new mill in the area—and company representatives. Those meetings took place on 16 May. I listened with great care to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, the local authority, the trade union and community representatives. They stressed, as the hon.
  766
  Gentleman has tonight, that the steelworks was profitable and that the work force was loyal and skilful. It had co-operated fully in the management's efforts to improve productivity over the past few years.
  I subsequently met, in the afternoon, the company directors who explained their reasons for announcing the intended closure. A number of reasons for their decision were given, including the scope for increased use of capacity at their other plants. They said that significant expenditure would be required at Brymbo to bring it up to standards achieved elsewhere in the group and that this expenditure would add considerably to the costs of continuing to manufacture at Brymbo. To utilise fully what they described as the more modern process routes of other UES plants within the group, the company had reluctantly concluded that Brymbo should be closed. Nevertheless, I took the opportunity to convey to the company the points made forcefully to me earlier by the local representatives.
  Following those two meetings, I am pleased to say that it was agreed that the company would hold urgent discussions with the Welsh Development Agency about all the options for the future of the steelworks. I immediately contacted by telephone the chairman of the WDA, Dr. Gwyn Jones, who made arrangements to visit the Brymbo works. He held detailed talks with the company as part of his agency's examination of the plant's viability. Although ultimate decisions about the Brymbo works are a matter for the commercial judgment of its owners, a number of options have already been identified.
  Clearly, the ideal solution for the area would be to ensure continuing steelmaking at Brymbo and I have asked the WDA to concentrate on finding such a solution, covering the examination of joint venture operations. Naturally, in addition, the WDA is looking into possible alternatives which include securing employment at the site, first, by attracting an allied industry to the works to use all or part of the plant complex; secondly, by converting the buildings for alternative uses, such as heavy engineering or steel fabrication; and, thirdly, by redeveloping the site totally. Dr. Jones is keeping in close touch with me on all those issues.
  Hon. Members may have read press reports saying that various companies have shown an interest in Brymbo for one of the uses mentioned earlier. The House will, of course, appreciate that discussions are at an early stage and it would be unfair of me to raise Members' hopes without foundation by giving details of any negotiations which may eventually prove fruitless. I would, however, like to thank the WDA for its prompt response. It has circulated worldwide the details of the facilities at Brymbo and the opporunties available to all interested companies and to all major banks throughout the world for them to convey to their clients.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham asked about grant aid paid to the company. I should be happy to explain the position to him. The last of the four-year conditions on assets at the works will have expired in September 1989. Therefore, there are no continuing conditions. I have little time left to deal with his remaining points.
  The WDA intends to be as positive and constructive as possible. I recognise that manufacturing employment in the Wrexham travel-to-work area at 16,600 is some 22 per cent. higher than it was in 1983. In overall terms, Wrexham and the Deeside area is one of the strongest growth areas

  767
  in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, our commitment to north Wales through the vast sums being spent on the A55 includes our commitment to Brymbo.
  Let me make it absolutely clear that, whatever the result of all the work now being undertaken, both sides of the House are determined to secure the future of the Brymbo community. Both Brymbo and its surrounding area have
  768
  seen a dramatic fall in unemployment in recent years, but that in no way lessens our resolve to help the steel community.
  I hope that the House will understand that I can say little about the detailed commercial discussions that are taking place, but I assure hon. Members that no opportunity will be left unexplored in our search for a satisfactory solution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  North Eastern Education and Library Board
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what evidence was reported by the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigating team of fraud, misappropriation or financial losses attributable to the management of mechanical and electrical services by the former principal engineer of the North Eastern education and library board;

  (2) what was the total cost of Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation into allegations made against the former principal engineer of the North Eastern education and library board; if he will publish the conclusions arrived at by the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation team; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  An RUC investigation into allegations of irregularities in North Eastern education and library board contracting commenced in June 1986. As a result of the investigation, in August 1987 the RUC forwarded a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions who directed "No prosecution". Details of the costs of the police investigation are not available.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the wearing of seat belts by drivers and front-seat passengers in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Lives should be saved if all drivers and front-seat passengers wear their seat belts. The Northern Ireland seat belt survey, based on data collected in August 1989, indicates a gradual decline in seat belt usage since May 1983 when 92 per cent. of car drivers wore belts compared with the most recent results when 84 per cent. of observed front-seat passengers were wearing seat belts. Seat belts usage overall in Northern Ireland is lower than the rest of the United Kingdom; 81 per cent. of all observed drivers of all vehicle types in Northern Ireland wore seat belts, compared with a 93 per cent. usage rate of all driver observed in Great Britain.

  In addition to the evidence produced by the survey, RUC statistics for 1988 showed that in those cases of front-seat fatalities where it was possible to determine whether seat belts had been worn almost half of those killed were not wearing seat belts.

  Failure by front-seat occupants to wear seat belts is against the law though there are certain exemptions. The RUC, in the light of the recent report, will be increasing its vigilance to detect law breakers and to advise and protect them from the folly of their actions.

  We shall continue to draw attention to the dangers of failing to wear seat belts within our programme of road casualty reduction.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements, and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The improvements resulting from inquiries and studies of the kind the hon. Member mentions are taken into account in the setting of annual budgets and internal targets. The results are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what mechanisms exist in his office for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The annual public expenditure round plays a key role in promoting value for money through the top down pressure exerted by taut allocations on programme and administrative expenditure. Departments are required to achieve efficiency savings of at least 1·5 per cent., per annum in their running costs, and to produce management plans detailing how these savings are to be achieved. Potential savings can be identified from a variety of sources such as efficiency studies, audit reports, purchasing studies, market testing of in-house operations and policy reviews, as well as by routine management action. All such activities inform the detailed planning and scrutiny of programme and running cost expenditure.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in England and Wales have held ballots on grant-maintained status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Parental ballots have been held at 90 schools in England and four schools in Wales.

  Chalvedon School
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make a decision on the application of Chalvedon school for grant-maintained status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The governing body of Chalvedon school has not yet published proposals for grant-maintained status. When it does so my right hon. Friend will consider them carefully, together with any objections that are received.

  Independent Schools (National Curriculum)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the likely impact on educational diversity and choice of independent schools adopting the national curriculum.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is committed to the breadth and diversity of educational choice
  603
  provided by the independent sector. He is pleased that many independent schools are choosing to adopt the national curriculum.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether membership of the joint working party for residential special schools will be affected by any new arrangements for determining the pay and conditions of teachers; what bodies form the membership of the joint working party for residential special schools; and how membership of the joint working party for residential special schools was determined.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 23 March 1990,Official Report, column 760.

  Education Ministers (Meeting)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the outcome of the meeting of Education Ministers in Brussels on 31 May.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I attended the meeting on 31 May of the Council and the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council. The Ministers adopted conclusions on meetings of senior officials in the education sector, on the treatment of equality of educational opportunity in the training of teachers, and on the preparation of a new convention for the European schools. The Ministers also adopted a resolution on the integration of children and young people with disabilities into ordinary systems of education. There were also discussions on education for enterprise and distance education and training.

  The conclusions relating to the European schools invite the commission to draft a new convention which would codify the existing statute and its amending instruments. The conclusions envisage that the draft convention should be finalised with a view to its adoption by the intergovernmental conference to be held before the end of 1991. Unanimity would be required for the adoption of a new convention, which would be subject to ratification by all of the member states. All the member states noted the possibility that the draft convention could incoporate a change in the voting arrangements on the board of governors of the European schools from unanimity to a qualified majority of two thirds, subject to the safeguarding of the specific interests of member states on whose territory European schools are situated. All the member states except the United Kingdom noted the possibility that the Community could become a contracting party to the agreement establishing the European schools alongside the member states. The Government favour the adoption of majority voting in the board of governors, but is not convinced that contracting party status for the Community is necessary or would bring any practical benefit to the management of the European schools.

THE ARTS

  National Museums
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many qualified accountants are employed by each of the national museums; and when each institution was last audited.

  Mr. Luce
  I am advised that the number of qualified accountants currently employed by each of the national museums is as follows:

  Number

  British museum

  nil

  Imperial war museum

  nil

  National maritime museum

  1

  National museums and galleries on Merseyside

  2

  Natural history museum

  1

  Science museum

  3

  Victoria and Albert museum

  1

  All national museums are audited annually by the National Audit Office, the last time being 1989.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many staff were seconded from national museums to regional institutions and vice versa during 1989.

  Mr. Luce
  I understand that during 1989 four national museums staff were seconded out to regional institutions; and that two members of staff from regional institutions were seconded to work in national museums. I welcome exchanges of staff of this kind.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many outreach programmes by national museums were initiated(a) to schools and (b) to regional museums during 1989.

  Mr. Luce
  Detailed information on outreach programmes by national museums initiated during 1989 are not held centrally, but the following cases are examples of the wide range of programmes undertaken to schools and regional museums last year.

  The British museum provided teachers' packs, training aids and professional advice to about 6,000 teachers individually and in connection with about 2,000 schools groups visiting the museum. The museum's two travelling exhibitions "Celtic Britain" and "Thomas Rowlandson Prints" toured to four regional venues.

  The natural history museum's travelling discovery centre was initiated last year in conjunction with sponsorship from the Clore Foundation.

  The science museum undertook an extensive programme of 10 travelling exhibitions to 29 venues during 1988–89.

  The Victoria and Albert museum loaned a total of 1,875 objects to 184 venues, of which three were schools and colleges, during 1989.

  In addition to these examples the Museums and Galleries Commission's travelling exhibitions unit is actively encouraging national museums to regularly tour their temporary exhibitions to regional venues.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Arts Council; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet Mr. Palumbo from time to time, to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  MEDIA Programme
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has made of the assistance that the European Community's MEDIA programme has given to enable British film producers to work in Europe.

  Mr. Luce
  The MEDIA programme is an initiative of the European Commission. They have not yet produced a full evaluation of the results achieved in film and television distribution, production, training and so on, so it is not easy to assess at this stage the precise assistance given to British film producers.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if the Government will support the European Commission's proposal to increase the budget of its MEDIA 92 programme to 250 million ecu over the next five years.

  Mr. Luce
  The European Commission made proposals last month for an action programme to promote the development of the European audiovisual industry at a cost of 250 million ecu over the years 1991–95. This is based on its existing MEDIA programme, the outcome of which has yet to be evaluated. I am considering with colleagues what our approach should be to its new proposals.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what support he has given to the work of(a) Media Guarantee, (b) Media Venture, (c) Media Investment Club, (d) CARTOON, (e) European Audivisual Entrepreneurs, (f) Euro Aim, (g) Broadcasting Across the Barriers of the European Language, (h) the European Film Distribution Office and (i) the European Script Fund under the MEDIA 92 project.

  Mr. Luce
  The MEDIA programme is a specific initiative of the European Commission which has not been presented to member states for approval. It is funded direct by the Commission from the general budget, to which the United Kingdom is a contributor. Her Majesty's Government do not provide direct support to these individual MEDIA projects.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by the offices for which he is responsible, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The figures requested by the hon. Member are available only in (a) cash terms and (b) 1978–79 money terms, for the following years:

  Electricity

  Gas

  Liquid fuel

  £

  £

  £

  1987–88

  5,069

  1,349

  659

  (2,470)

  (657)

  (321)

  1988–89

  6,717

  970

  845

  (3,056)

  (441)

  (384)

  606

  Electricity

  Gas

  Liquid fuel

  £

  £

  £

  1989–901

  5,877

  872

  778

  (2,511)

  (373)

  (332)

  Note: () denotes 1978–79 money terms.

  1 1989–90 expenditure relates to eleven months consumption only.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the number of dedicated energy managers in the offices for which he is responsible and the number of person-years devoted to energy management in the latest year.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The Office of Arts and Libraries has no dedicated energy manager. It is advised by the Cabinet Office in such matters.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in the offices for which he is responsible in the last five years and for each audit statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 5 June 19901]: No energy audits have been carried out in the Office of Arts and Libraries, but surveys to improve energy efficiency have been undertaken and measures to reduce energy consumption have been, and are being, taken.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what were the value for money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Improvements resulting from inquiries and studies of the kind referred to are taken into account in the setting of the office's annual budgets and internal targets. It is not possible, however, to quantify savings fulfilled in the way suggested because of the effect of wider organisational changes within the office.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what mechanisms exist in the Office of Arts and Libraries for identifying and tracking value for money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The Office of Arts and Libraries has no mechanisms for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings, but is advised by the internal audit and staff inspection teams of the Cabinet Office.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Unemployment Benefits
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide estimates for each of the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 of the amount of income tax collected from the taxation of unemployment benefits.

  Mr. Lilley
  The latest estimates of the yield from taxing unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit or income support paid in lieu of unemployment benefit are as follows:
  607

  £ million

  1987–88

  320

  1988–89

  220

  1989–90

  180

  These estimates are based on national amounts of benefits paid each year to the unemployed and information on income of the unemployed derived from the results of the 1987 family expenditure survey. The figures are subject to revision.

  Inflation
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects inflation to fall below 5 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The "Financial Statement and Budget Report" forecast that all-items RPI inflation would be 5 per cent. in the second quarter of 1991 and would fall further thereafter.

  Investment
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current levels of investment.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Total investment in 1989 was at record levels. Since 1979 total investment has increased by over 40 per cent. or an average of 3½ per cent. a year. This compares to the last Labour Government's record where investment grew by an average of only ¼ per cent. a year.

  Poor People
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal policies the Government have to protect the poorest in society.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The main objective of the Government's fiscal policies is to improve the performance of the economy, which benefits everybody, including the poorest. Since 1979, the basic rate of income tax has been cut from 33 to 25 per cent., benefiting all taxpayers; the main personal allowances have been increased by about 25 per cent. in real terms, taking about 2 million individuals out of tax, compared to the 1978–79 regime indexed for inflation; and the structure of national insurance contributions has been reformed, benefiting in particular the low paid.

  Overseas Financial Assets
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present stock of the overseas financial assets; and what was the level of such assets in 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The estimated level of identified United Kingdom external assets, net of identified liabilities, at the end of 1989 was about £110 billion ("Financial Statement and Budget Report 1990", paragraph 3·39), compared with about £.12½ billion at the end of 1979. Later information will be published in the balance of payments Pink Book in August.

  PAYE
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions the Inland Revenue has issued relating to PAYE to be applied on fees paid to one-man service companies; and under what statutory authority such instructions were formulated.

  Mr. Lilley
  Schedule E (PAYE) applies to the emoluments of an individual arising from either an employment or an office. Whether in any particular case there is a contract of employment with an individual, or his services are supplied under a contract with a one-man service company, are questions to be decided by reference to all the facts and circumstances.

  Tax Debts
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the tax debts at the latest date for which figures are available for(a) overall income tax, (b) PAYE and (c) corporation tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  The amounts of tax outstanding at the annual balance date to the end of October 1988 (the latest published figures), together with provisional figures for the year to October 1989, are as follows:

  £ billion

  Assessed taxes

  October 1988

  October 1989 (provisional figures)

  Income tax

  2·3

  2·3

  Corporation tax

  1·5

  1·6

  CGT

  0·1

  0·2

  PAYE

  Closed years

  0·8

  0·8

  Current year

  0·6

  0·7

  Total

  5·3

  5·6

  The outstanding balances at October are equivalent to 7·75 per cent. and 7·25 per cent. respectively of the total tax due for 1988–89 and 1989–90. They include over £1 billion which had only recently become due, and the bulk (about four-fifths) attracts interest. The amounts actually remitted or written off—mostly due to insolvency—in these years were less than 1 per cent. of the tax due.

  Financial Statistics
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish for each year since 1978–79, including estimates for 1990–91, showing revenue at current and at constant, April 1990, prices from(a) local authority domestic rates/community charge, (b) local authority commercial rates/uniform business rate, (c) employers' national insurance contributions, (d) employees' national insurance contributions, (e) self-employed national insurance contributions and (f) personal income tax.

  Mr. Major
  In so far as it is available, the information requested is given in the tables. In the second table the figures are expressed in constant 1989–90 prices.
  609

  £ billion

  Domestic rates1

  Business rates

  Employers' NICs2

  Employees' NICs3

  Income tax

  1978–79

  2·36

  3·43

  8·24

  4·09

  18·75

  1979–80

  2·84

  3·99

  10·26

  4·85

  20·60

  1980–81

  3·71

  5·04

  12·05

  5·94

  24·30

  1981·82

  4·60

  6·08

  12·77

  7·52

  28·72

  1982–83

  5·21

  6·88

  12·02

  9·20

  30·36

  1983–84

  5·01

  7·25

  12·45

  10·53

  31·11

  1984–85

  5·32

  7·63

  12·20

  11·29

  32·51

  1985–86

  5·65

  8·23

  12·53

  12·11

  35·35

  1986–87

  6·54

  9·16

  13·82

  12·79

  38·50

  1987–88

  7·29

  9·83

  15·33

  14·13

  41·40

  1988–89

  8·35

  10·55

  17·28

  15·65

  43·43

  1989–905

  9·17

  11·29

  18·33

  14·71

  48·69

  1990–9l6

  11·28

  12·14

  20·62

  15·27

  54·98

  1989–90 prices4

  £ billion

  Domestic rates1

  Business rates

  Employers' NICs2

  Employees' NIC3

  Income tax

  1978–89

  5·51

  8·01

  19·24

  9·55

  43·73

  1979–80

  5·68

  7·98

  20·51

  9·71

  41·15

  1980–81

  6·27

  8·52

  20·36

  10·04

  41·01

  1981–82

  7·09

  9·37

  19·68

  11·59

  44·22

  1982–83

  7·50

  9·90

  17·29

  13·24

  43·64

  1983–84

  6·88

  9·96

  17·11

  14·47

  42·69

  1984–85

  6·96

  9·98

  15·95

  14·76

  42·46

  1985–86

  7·02

  10·22

  15·56

  15·04

  43·86

  1986–87

  7·86

  11·01

  16·61

  15·36

  46·21

  1987–88

  8·30

  11·19

  17·45

  16·10

  47·10

  1988–89

  8·89

  11·24

  18·41

  16·67

  46·21

  1989–905

  9·17

  11·29

  18·33

  14·71

  48·69

  1990–916

  10·59

  11·40

  19·36

  14·34

  52·04

  1 Includes community charge.

  2 Includes national insurance surcharge in the period to 1984–85.

  3 Includes national insurance contributions by self-employed for which separate data are only available from 1986–87 to 1988–89.

  4 Treasury estimate of GDP deflator in 1989–90 is used to convert current prices to constant 1989–90 prices.

  5 Estimate.

  6 Budget forecast.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures, at constant 1990 prices, for each year since 1979, showing(a) revenue from North sea oil and gas, (b) revenue from privatisation, (c)

  £ billion at 1989 prices

  North sea revenues1

  Privatisation proceeds1

  PSBR1

  Current account

  RPI inflation in April

  Interest rates at end of April2

  1979

  4·6

  0·8

  19·9

  -1·1

  10·1

  12

  1980

  6·3

  0·7

  21·2

  4·8

  21·8

  17

  1981

  10·0

  0·8

  13·3

  10·3

  12·0

  12

  1982

  11·3

  0·7

  12·8

  6·6

  9·4

  13

  1983

  12·1

  1·6

  13·3

  5·2

  4·0

  10

  1984

  15·7

  2·8

  13·2

  2·6

  5·2

  8·5–8·75

  1985

  14·1

  3·4

  7·0

  3·9

  6·9

  12·5–12·75

  1986

  5·7

  5·3

  4·3

  -0·1

  3·0

  10·5

  1987

  5·3

  5·9

  -3·9

  -5·0

  4·2

  9·5

  1988

  3·4

  7·6

  -15·4

  -1·60

  3·9

  8

  1989

  2·3

  4·2

  -7·9

  -20·9

  8·0

  13

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9·4

  15

  1 Data in first three columns are for financial years. A Treasury estimate of the GDP deflator in 1989–90 has been used to convert current price figures to constant 1989–90 prices as the outturn is not yet available.

  2 Base rates of selected retail banks.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken to minimise environmental pollution when seized cannabis is disposed of.
  610
  public sector borrowing requirement, (d) balance of payments current account, (e) the rate of inflation at April of each year and (f) interest rates at April of each year.

  Mr. Major
  In so far as it is available, the information requested is given in the table. The appropriate figures are expressed in 1989 (or 1989–90) prices.

  Mr. Ryder
  Most cannabis seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is destroyed by incineration within Queen's warehouses. The incinerators used are designed to
  611
  comply with the emission requirements of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, ensuring total burnout of solid and gaseous material.

  Customs staff are instructed to consult with local authorities for advice where destruction of drugs might lead to environmental hazard.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether Inland Revenue databanks cover by name people living long term in lodging houses;

  (2) how many individuals are included by name on Inland Revenue databanks;

  (3) whether Inland Revenue databanks include the home as well as place of work addresses of all people recorded in them.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue records an address for all individuals whom it may need to contact in connection with their own tax liabilities or their accountability for PAYE as an employer. The type of accommodation is of no relevance to the Department.

  A taxpayer's computer record will include his personal address. It will not show his place of work address, unless he is a self-employed person working from his home. It is not possible to say at any given time exactly how many individuals are on record, but we would expect currently to have approximately 33 million.

  National Savings
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take further measures to change National Savings products.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget increases of 1 per cent. in the interest rate on the national savings investment account and income bonds. Changes to the terms of some other key national savings products which encourage long-term savings are being made over the next three to four weeks, as follows:a new fixed interest savings certificate, offering a tax free guaranteed return of 9·5 per cent. a year if held for five years; a similar improvement in the associated regular monthly savings scheme, the yearly plan;
  a new index-linked savings certificate revalued monthly by reference to the RPI, and offering tax free guaranteed extra interest of 4·5 per cent. a year, if held for five years;
  a new series capital bond offering a guaranteed return of 13 per cent. a year (taxable, but credited without prior deduction of income tax), if held for five years.

  These measures show the determination of my right hon. Friend to encourage more people to save, and people to save more. They maintain the momentum of the savers' Budget, and demonstrate that national savings will play a significant part in continuing to stimulate the savings habit.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to public funds in the current financial year and with retrospective effort to 6 April of transferring the total cost of teachers' salaries from local government to the Exchequer but leaving the current level of grant to local authorities unchanged; and what addition that would require to(a) income tax and (b) value added tax if the extra cost were divided equally between them.
  612
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: If local authorities spent in line with the education component of total standard spending in England and Wales, and total current expenditure in Scotland, the total cost of teachers' salaries would be around £9½ billion. If there were no change to revenue support grant and the cost of teachers' salaries were divided equally between local authorities and the Exchequer, this would imply additional central Government expenditure of around £4¼ billion. This is equivalent to an increase of around 3p in the basic rate of income tax or an increase of around two percentage points in the VAT rate.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Surveys of the lighting efficiency of Treasury buildings were carried out in 1987. The main recommendation was that there was scope for greater lighting efficiency, mainly in the Parliament street building. This is being taken into account in the forthcoming rewiring.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his estimates of the numbers of people paying income tax in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The estimated number of individuals resident in England liable to income tax is 20·4 million for 1987–88, the latest available year. The corresponding estimates for Scotland and Wales are 2,160,000 and 940,000 respectively. Married women are included where their earned income exceeds the wife's earned income allowance and any personal allowances and reliefs unused against the husband's income.

PRIME MINISTER

  Greek Prime Minister
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what subjects she discussed during her meeting with the Prime Minister of Greece in London on 16 May.

  The Prime Minister
  We discussed a wide range of topics including East-West relations, Cyprus, Greece's relations with Turkey, South Africa, the European Community, the case of Mr. Paul Ashwell, and the opportunities for strengthening bilateral links between our two countries.

  South Africa
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, during her discussions with the President of South Africa on. 19 May at Chequers, she or Mr. De Klerk raised the matter of the prospects of South Africa joining the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  No. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the nuclear non-proliferation treaty with the South African Foreign Minister.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer on 15 May,Official Report, column 375, whether Ministers will continue to give substantive answers to questions on matters delegated to executive agencies where the Member concerned has indicated that he or she does not wish in the first instance to deal directly with the agency chief executive.

  The Prime Minister
  As I told the hon. Member on 15 May, Ministers remain fully accountable to Parliament for the work of their Department, including executive agencies and are, therefore, ready to reply to questions about any aspect of this work. But one of the objectives of establishing executive agencies is to respond better to the concerns of hon. and right hon. Members. Chief executives and agency managers will have the immediate detailed knowledge which the hon. Member is seeking, as well as the necessary delegated authority to take appropriate action. Where right hon. and hon. Members' concerns relate to an operational matter for which the Minister has delegated authority to the chief executive under the agency's published framework document, they will therefore best be met by going direct to the chief executive or, as appropriate, the local agency manager to get a prompt and effective response.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 385, whether the figures quoted on energy consumpton for the Cabinet Office include accommodation occupied by the Privy Council Office.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 256, what energy consumption figures are available for the buildings occupied by the Cabinet Office.

  The Prime Minister
  Energy consumption figures for 1989–90 are available for approximately 76 per cent. of Cabinet Office holdings. The consumption was:

  Consumption

  Electricity

  3,497,992

  kWh

  Gas

  34,092

  therms

  Liquid fuel

  488,110

  litres

  Efficiency Unit
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Prime Minister what topics have been covered in the efficiency unit's central scrutiny programme in the last financial year; and how many of the scrutiny reports have been published.

  The Prime Minister
  Twenty-three efficiency scrutinies have been undertaken by Departments in 1989–90 in association with the efficiency adviser and the efficency unit. The programme of scrutinies, including those which are not yet completed, is as follows:614

  Department and title of scrutiny

  Report publicly available

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Entry Processing Arrangements (Import and Export Freight)

  No

  Department of Employment Take-up of Employment Department Programmes

  No

  Department of Energy UKAEA Programme Letters for Nuclear R&D and other nuclear work

  No

  Department of Education and Science Education Support Grants and LEA Training Grants Scheme

  Yes

  Department of the Environment Housing Management Training

  No

  Departments of Health and Social Security Provision and Cost-effectiveness of External Consultancy

  Yes

  Department of Social Security Departmental Debt

  No

  Department of Trade and Industry Charging for Central Services

  Yes

  Department of Transport Vehicle Excise Duty Enforcement

  No

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Financial Management at FCO Headquarters

  No

  Home Office Government Funding of the Voluntary Sector

  Yes

  Prison Medical Service

  No

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce Middle Management Structure

  No

  Inland Revenue Repayment Claims

  No

  PAYE Payment Dates

  No

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food EC Product Classifications for Export Refund Purposes

  Yes

  Ministry of Defence Married Quarters in London Area

  No

  NAAFI

  No

  Fixed Wing Aircraft Maintenance

  No

  Overseas Development Administration Aid Expenditure Management

  No

  Property Services Agency Cost-competitiveness Initiative

  No

  Scottish Office Roads Directorate

  No

  Welsh Office Education Grants (Welsh Office)

  No

  Decisions on the publication of scrutiny reports are taken by the Ministers responsible for the scrutinies concerned. In a number of cases, where a scrutiny has been recently completed or is not yet complete, no decision on publication has been made.

  A number of other scrutinies have also been conducted according to full scrutiny disciplines and with guidance from the efficiency unit:

  Metropolitan Police Scrutiny Programme

  Thames Division

  Other Police Forces

  Communication

  Training

  Force Administration

  Recruitment

  Police Hostel Accommodation

  Criminal Investigation Department

  Community Relations

  Prosecution Process

  Accident Reporting Procedures

  Force Inspectorate

ENERGY

  Mines
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many people were employed in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in (i) British Coal opencast mines, (ii) licensed private opencast coal mines, (iii) British Coal deep mines and (iv) licensed private deep coal mines in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many (a) British Coal opencast mines, (b) licensed private opencast coal mines, (c) British Coal deep mines and (d) licensed private deep coal mines were in operation in (i) England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  These are matters for the British Coal Corporation.

  Radioactive Wastes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) of 21 May,Official Report, column 11, if he will set out those suggestions made by the International Atomic Energy Agency which have been incorporated by Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive into the future research programme.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is an operational matter for UK Nirex Ltd.

  British Gas
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) of 14 May,Official Report, column 315, if there are any issues discussed at his regular meetings with the chairman of British Gas which he does not consider fall within his responsibility in so far as he is ready to give answers to parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Yes. My right hon. Friend and I discuss a range of matters relating to the gas industry and its development; such discussions are no different from those we also have routinely with representatives of other major United Kingdom energy companies.

  Research
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each year from 1979–80 to 1991–92 inclusive the outturn estimate, provision or planned expenditure on research funded by his Department into(a) coal technology, (b) nuclear power and (c) energy efficiency expressing these figures in (i) money terms, (ii) 1990–91 real terms and (iii) as a percentage of his Department's total research expenditure.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Figures for the years up to and including 1990–91 are given in the table. Figures for 1991–92 are not available separately but are incorporated in table 5.1 of chapter 5 of the 1990 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1005).
  616

  Money terms £ million

  1990–91 real terms £ million

  Percentage of total R and D expenditure

  (a) Coal technology

  1979–80

  1·8

  3·8

  1·0

  1980–81

  2·7

  4·9

  1·2

  1981–82

  4·9

  8·0

  2·1

  1982–83

  3·4

  5·2

  1·4

  1983–84

  3·4

  5·0

  1·4

  1984–85

  0·9

  1·3

  0·4

  1985–86

  0·8

  1·1

  0·4

  1986–87

  1·9

  2·4

  1·0

  1987–88

  1·4

  1·7

  0·8

  1988–89

  0·9

  1·0

  0·5

  1989–90

  2·6

  2·8

  1·5

  1990–91

  7·6

  7·6

  4·2

  (b) Nuclear energy

  1979–80

  145·5

  310·6

  83·6

  1980–81

  188·0

  339·1

  84·7

  1981–82

  203·2

  333·8

  85·1

  1982–83

  212·4

  325·4

  86·9

  1983–84

  203·8

  298·3

  85·7

  1984–85

  196·2

  273·6

  84·6

  1985–86

  189·6

  250·9

  85·4

  1986–87

  159·7

  204·4

  83·0

  1987–88

  141·0

  171·4

  79·9

  1988–89

  159·3

  180·7

  83·8

  1989–90

  140·9

  150·1

  74·5

  1990–91

  128·9

  128·9

  72·0

  (c) Energy efficiency

  1979–80

  1·4

  3·0

  0·8

  1980–81

  3·1

  5·6

  1·4

  1981–82

  2·5

  4·1

  1·0

  1982–83

  4·5

  6·9

  1·8

  1983–84

  7·0

  10·2

  2·9

  1984–85

  6·2

  8·6

  2·7

  1985–86

  3·3

  4·4

  1·5

  1986–87

  3·8

  4·9

  2·0

  1987–88

  4·1

  5·0

  2·3

  1988–89

  2·9

  3·3

  1·5

  1989–90

  8·0

  8·5

  4·5

  1990–91

  11·0

  11·0

  6·1

  Notes:

  1. 1979–80 and 1980–81 figures include some non-R and D expenditure but do not include associated Departmental staff costs.

  2. 1981–82 to 1987–88 are taken from the "Annual Review of Government Funded R and D" and cover R and D plus associated Departmental staff costs (ie Frascati R and D). 1988–89 figures are calculated on the same basis.

  3. 1989–90 figures are forecast outturn and 1990–91 figures are taken from Estimates. These are R and D only and do not include associated Departmental staff costs. The 1989–90 figure may be subject to end year adjustment.

  Generation Fuels
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give, for the latest available year, a regional breakdown of figures consistent with those on fuel used for generation in table 53 of the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1989".

  Mr. Wakeham
  Information on fuel used for electricity generation by region is not collected by the Department.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give 1988–89 figures consistent with the figures for previous years on the fuel used for generation in table 53 of the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1989".

  Mr. Wakeham
  The quantities of fuel used for electricity generation by the public supply system in 1988–89 were as follows:
  617

  Type of fuel

  Million tonnes of coal or coal equivalent

  Coal1

  80·69

  Oil for firing boilers2

  6·81

  Oil for lighting up boilers3

  1·47

  Natural gas4

  0·01

  Nuclear

  19·67

  Hydro

  2·33

  Other5

  0·16

  Total fuel used

  111·14

  1 Used in coal fired stations, and coal fired sections of mixed fired stations.

  2 Used in oil fired stations, and oil fired sections of mixed fired stations, plus all oil used in Northern Ireland.

  3 Used in coal fired stations, and pulverised coal fired sections of mixed fired stations. Also used for flame control and overburning. Oil used at coal fired power stations in Northern Ireland is included with oil for firing boilers.

  4 Used in mixed fired stations.

  5 Includes oil used in diesel engine and gas turbine stations or sections (excluding Northern Ireland—see footnotes 2 and 3).

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give, for the latest available year, figures for each power station on the fuel used for generation consistent with those in table 53 of the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1989".

  Mr. Wakeham
  Information on fuel used for electricity generation by individual power stations is not collected by the Department.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any individual who has advised the Conservative party on advertising or public relations was involved in selecting the company awarded the advertising contract for electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In deciding which company to appoint as advertising agency for the flotation of the regional electricity campaign, I and the companies were advised by a panel of officials and advisers of Government Departments and the regional electricity companies. One of these advisers was Mr. Tim Bell the chairman of Lowe Bell Communications who are the Department's marketing advisers. Mr. Bell has provided general advice to the Conservative party.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what budgetary provision has been made for the cost of the advertising campaigns to promote the flotation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales.

  Mr. Wakeham
  All expenses in respect of the advertising campaigns for the sale of the electricity supply industry will be met from the proceeds of the sale.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any individual who has advised the Conservative party on advertising or public relations is involved in the company awarded the advertising contract for electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Government and the regional electricity companies have already announced the appointment of WCRS Mathews Marcantonio as advertising agency for the flotation of the companies. The 618
  chairman of the agency is Mr Robin Wright who provided some advice on advertising issues to the Conservative party over two years ago.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy in the case of each of those companies advising him and also advising electricity boards on electricity privatisation what is the percentage of fees borne by his Department; and what was the equivalent percentage in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Where the appointment is solely by the Department it meets 100 per cent. of the costs involved. Where, however, the appointment is made jointly by the Department and the industry, the costs are apportioned between the parties. The precise split in costs varies from contract to contract and is commercially confidential between the Department, the company or companies concerned and the firm of advisers appointed.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether before entering into a binding contract with an advertising agency for the campaigns to privatise the electricity supply industry on the basis of competitive tenders, the agency was given an indication of the likely budget for the campaigns.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No indication of the likely budget lor the campaigns was provided.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cost of one kilowatt hour of electricity generated by(a) coal, (b) oil, (c) gas and (d) nuclear power, respectively; and what are his Department's latest estimates for (i) wind power, (ii) wave power and (iv) tidal power.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The costs of generating electricity from coal, oil, nuclear and gas are a matter for the industries. The Department's latest estimates for wind, wave and tidal power are as contained in Energy Paper No. 55, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Andrew Balfour
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 6 March,Official Report, column 559, whether he has yet made a decision in respect of the future career of Mr. Andrew Balfour.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Mr. Balfour was informed by letter dated 16 March that he had been suspended from his duties in accordance with departmental regulations pending inquiries into what further action should be taken. Mr. Balfour has now replied formally. The case will be dealt with under internal diplomatic service procedures.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitment he has made on the provision of economic aid to Bulgaria following the elections on 10 June.
  619
  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have made no commitment. What assistance we offer will depend on whether the elections on 10 and 17 June are free and fair and how far the new Government are committed to economic and political reform.

  Civil Nuclear Affairs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes there have been in the responsibilities of his Department for international civil nuclear affairs and safeguards matters.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The overall responsibilities of this Department have not changed. There has, however, been an internal reorganisation, as a result of which non-proliferation and safeguards matters are handled by the non-proliferation department and civil nuclear matters are handled by the environment, science and energy department.

  Hong Kong (Laboratory Tests)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to discuss with the appropriate authorities in the Crown territories of Hong Kong the introduction of a standardised laboratory testing scheme along the lines of the United Kingdom national measurement accreditation service.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The Hong Kong Government have already introduced a laboratory accreditation scheme along the lines of the United Kingdom national measurement accreditation service (NAMAS) and this has entered into a mutual recognition agreement with NAMAS.

  Nuclear Energy Safeguards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states, party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, have nuclear energy programmes not within the safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency; and what steps have been taken to encourage such states to conclude such agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The only party to the non-proliferation treaty—the NPT—which has significant nuclear facilities and has not concluded a safeguards agreement with the IAEA is North Korea. We do not recognise North Korea as a state, but we have made clear our concern about the absence of a safeguards agreement, as required under article III of the NPT, at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Libya
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any information concerning(a) the possession of and (b) attempts to produce nuclear weapons by Libya.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. Libya is a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and, as such, has undertaken not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.

  NATO Foreign Ministers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the items on the agenda for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Foreign Ministers meeting in Scotland on 7 and 8 June.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This meeting will be an important opportunity to discuss the Vienna negotiations on conventional forces in Europe, and options for further conventional arms control; developments in east-west relations and the CSCE process; the security aspects of German unification; the need to adapt NATO in response to changes in Europe; and preparations for the NATO summit, to be held in London in early July. Ministers are also likely to consider the negotiations in confidence and security-building measures and "open skies"; nuclear issues; and NATO science, environment and fellowship programmes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Council of Industry Ministers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he intends to put forward at the next European Ministers Industry Council.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An Industry Council meeting was held on 28 May to discuss steel, shipbuilding, small and medium-sized enterprises and semiconductors. The next meeting is scheduled for 21 September, and at present I have no plans for the United Kingdom to table any proposals.

  Environmental Audits
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to meet the chairman and the officials of the Co-op to discuss the utility of the recent Co-op decision to conduct a full environmental audit of its own brands.

  Mr. Forth
  Ministers have no plans to meet the chairman and officials of the Co-op to discuss their environmental audit. The Government have made clear their commitment to introduce an official environmental labelling scheme for consumer goods as soon as possible and recently announced the establishment of an advisory group to assist its development. In the meantime, the initiative of the Co-op to audit its own brand products is to be welcomed.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has recently exercised his powers as special shareholder in Rolls-Royce plc.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Consent was given on behalf of the special shareholder to a resolution passed at the company's annual general meeting on 30 May amending article 43 of the articles of association which deals with United Kingdom control of the company. The amendment will facilitate the setting up of a depositary receipts programme by the company enabling foreign investors to purchase an interest in shares in Rolls-Royce more easily while maintaining the overall limit on foreign shareholdings of 29·5 per cent.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received a report from the Securities and Investments Board on the exercise of its functions under the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  A copy of the board's report, made in accordance with section 117 of the Act, was laid before Parliament yesterday. The report covers the period from I April 1989 to 31 March 1990. Copies are now available in the Library.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the value-for-money savings in his Department's operations identified by internal audit and internal efficiency arrangements and by external audit and by management consultants retained by his Department between 1983–84 and 1988–89; and what is the amount of those savings fulfilled to date.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: In my answer to another question from the hon. Member today, I described the mechanisms for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings within my Department. These mechanisms have been refined over the period referred to in the question. Prior to 1988–89, follow-up was specific to each of the mechanisms. Since 1988–89 the Department has been committed to achieving efficiency savings averaging at least 1·5 per cent. of departmental running costs each year over three years from these and other sources. In 1989–90 it is estimated that the Department achieved savings on running costs from all sources of 3·2 per cent. Savings aggregated centrally are not attributed to specific mechanisms: the figures requested cannot therefore be given.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms exist in his Department for identifying and tracking value-for-money savings in its operations.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The Department has a variety of efficiency review mechanisms such as efficiency scrutinies, staff inspection and internal audit. These include arrangements for follow-up action where they identify efficiency savings. In addition, the Department conducts an annual review of activity and resource management which takes into account in the allocation of resources the outcome of these reviews and other efficiency savings identified.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the amount of money manufacturing industry spends on research and development, excluding military research, in the United Kingdom and its major industrial competitors.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Collection of separate figures for United Kingdom non-military research and development performed by manufacturing industry began only this year, relating to calendar year 1989. An analysis of the returns, prepared by the Central Statistical Office, is scheduled to he published during 1991. Data in the form requested are not available for the United Kingdom's major industrial competitors.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences have existed to enable persons to act as trustees for the purposes of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 for each year since 1985–86.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  Schedule of authorisations under the Insolvency Act 1986

  Totals at the year end

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Competent authority Secretary of State

  48

  62

  84

  Recognised professional bodies

  Insolvency Practitioners Association

  226

  225

  265

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  790

  860

  970

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland

  175

  184

  205

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland

  85

  93

  100

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  95

  99

  111

  Law Society

  63

  70

  97

  Law Society of Scotland

  25

  31

  33

  1,507

  1,624

  1,865

  Food Storage (Temperature)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the refrigeration industry's ability to meet statutory temperature requirements for storage of food; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department has participated in discussions between the refrigeration industry and the Department of Health, which is responsible for temperature requirements for food storage. Decisions about these will take account of the timely availability of suitable refrigeration equipment.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tobacco Exports
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of the Minister for Overseas Development on Monday 14 May,Official Report, column 596, what action his Department is taking to look into the matter of British American Tobacco exports of cigarettes to the third world.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 24 May, at column 370, which set out the Government's policy on aid to the tobacco sector. Aid funds are not used to finance imports of cigarettes and tobacco into developing countries. The Government have no plans at present for an inquiry into their export from the United Kingdom.

  Brazil
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed with the Brazilian Environment Minister, Dr. Josè Lutzenberger, during his recent visit to the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I had a very useful meeting with Dr. Lutzenberger. We discussed Brazil's environmental problems, including the preservation of the rain forests and the protection of the Indian population, the role of sustainable agriculture in conservation, and progress with the United Kingdom environmental co-operation programme with Brazil.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance he proposes to provide to the new Government in Nicaragua.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We plan to provide a grant of £600,000 in support of one or more sectors of the Nicaraguan economy. The offer will be made at the conference of aid donors to Nicaragua which is being held in Rome on 6 and 7 June.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make changes in the immigration rules.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before Parliament a "Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules", which removes Argentina and the German Democratic Republic from the list of countries whose nationals need visas for the United Kingdom. The changes come into effect on 8 June.

  IBA (Transmission Functions)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) of 8 May,Official Report, columns 32–33, by what criteria it will be judged appropriate to remove the restrictions on British Telecom and the Channel 3 and 5 franchises.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is our intention to remove the ownership restrictions on British Telecom and the Channel 3 and 5 franchisees as soon as the United Kingdom broadcasting and telecommunications markets are sufficiently competitive to guard against the dangers of market domination and vertical integration.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on his proposals to introduce ownership restrictions in respect of the transmission company which will replace the Independent Broadcasting Authority's transmission functions.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received three representations in connection with the proposed ownership restrictions which were announced on 8 May.

  Dog Fighting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were taken against those involved in dog fighting activities in 1989 and so far in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available centrally.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Wandsworth branch of the Prison Officers Association on staffing levels at Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers, visited Wandsworth in January and staffing levels were included in discussion with the local POA branch secretary. Since then, staffing levels have been discussed in the normal course between the governor and the local branch of the POA.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) black and white and (b) colour television licences were issued in 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  Licence issues are recorded by financial year. A total of 17·4 million colour and 2·2 million monochrome licences were issued in 1988–89. Figures for 1989–90 are expected in several weeks time.

TRANSPORT

  School Buses
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the consultation paper, referred to in his answer of 14 November 1989 to the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson),Official Report, column 111, on the requirement for a distinctive sign to be carried on school buses, will be issued; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Today. Draft regulations are being circulated to interested parties and their comments invited by 31 August.

  The proposed regulations would require all buses—except those running scheduled services for the general public—to display a distinctive sign while carrying children to or from their school. They would also permit the fitting of flashing amber lights near such signs, and their use when children are getting on or off the bus.

  The use of these signs will make a significant contribution to improving the safety of children using school buses. They will alert motorists to the fact that children are about and might be crossing the road. Motorists should exercise extra caution every time they overtake a stationary bus displaying the sign, whether or not it is equipped with the additional flashing lights.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced recently a wide programme of steps to promote safety of children on roads. We hope that, taken together, all these measures will help to bring about the reduction in child road deaths that we all want to see.
  625
  The regulations would also require better reflective rear markings on new large lorries in future. The new markings are much brighter than those required by the present British standard. They would have to meet the latest European standard, ECE regulation 70. The new markings would also he permitted on existing vehicles as an alternative to the Btitish standard markings, which were introduced nearly 20 years ago.

  Rush-hour Traffic
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the saving in costs of road building, road maintenance, policing and congestion if the volume of rush-hour traffic in our major cities were reduced by 10 per cent.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am not aware of any estimates which have been made on this matter.

  Motor Insurers Bureau
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the number of claims registered with the Motor Insurers Bureau in each year since the operation of the voluntary agreement; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to review the operation of the voluntary agreement entered into by the Motor Insurers Bureau; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list the average period of time taken to deal with claimants applying to the Motor Insurers Bureau in each year since the operation of the voluntary agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The numbers of claims submitted to the Motor Insurers Bureau each year under its agreements with the Secretary of State are listed in the table. The figure for 1989 includes 3,154 claims for property damage only, which are admissible under the revised uninsured drivers agreement which came into force on 31 December 1988.

  Year

  Number

  1946

  547

  1947

  1948

  436

  1949

  320

  1950

  357

  1951

  402

  1952

  400

  1953

  448

  1954

  434

  1955

  503

  1956

  581

  1957

  592

  1958

  667

  1959

  808

  1960

  943

  1961

  1,131

  1963

  1,207

  1964

  1,393

  1965

  1,883

  1966

  1,930

  1967

  2,106

  1968

  2,443

  1969

  2,208

  1970

  2,759

  1971

  2,618

  1972

  3,172

  1973

  3,164

  1974

  3,718

  626

  Year

  Number

  1975

  3,667

  1976

  3,669

  1977

  4,153

  1978

  4,462

  1979

  4,409

  1980

  5,312

  1981

  5,098

  1982

  5,363

  1983

  6,326

  1984

  6,028

  1985

  7,000

  1986

  8,854

  1987

  9,596

  1988

  10,208

  1989

  14,392

  I understand that claims to the bureau settled in the first three months of 1990 took on average approximately 10 months from receipt to settlement. The agreements have been revised from time to time since the bureau was formed in 1946. I have no plans to revise the present arrangements.

  Transport Fuels
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to commission a study along the lines of that undertaken by the United States Department of Energy and Argonne National Laboratories, published by the United States national technical information service, on the potential for reducing atmospheric pollution from transport vehicles through the introduction of alternative transport fuels.

  Mr. Atkins
  The options, including the potential for using alternative fuels, to further reduce pollution from motor vehicles are currently being reviewed. This may lead to the commissioning of more detailed assessments to complement the results of existing national and international research.

  Reprocessed Waste (Transport)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been commissioned by his Department in regard to the design and development of transport flasks or other containers for the movement of vitrified high-level waste back to its countries of origin, following reprocessing.

  Mr. Atkins
  Design and development studies are undertaken by the consigners, who then submit them to the Department for independent assessment. Shipments of vitrified high-level waste by any mode of transport will be required to be carried in containers which have been approved and certified by my Department as fully complying with stringent national and international safety regulations.

  Roads
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's planned expenditure on road construction and repair for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the north of England and (c) County Durham in the present financial year.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Planned expenditure on trunk road construction and repair in 1990–91 is as follows:

  627

  £ million

  England

  1,808·1

  North of England

  342·1

  County Durham

  5·2

  Figures for any single year are a poor indicator of the geographical balance of the programme. The road programme contains schemes in the north worth £2·9 billion (works cost, November 1987 prices) amounting to one quarter of the total for England. Major improvements to the A167 in County Durham form part of this programme.

HEALTH

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Medicines Control Agency is included among those autonomous agencies, as defined by Treasury documents Cm. 914, on "The Financing and Accountability of Next Steps Agencies", published in December 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) under what statutory authority he has ruled that the Medicines Control Agency may not charge turnover-related fees;

  (2) whether the Medicines Control Agency may charge turnover-based fees;

  (3) why a system of turnover-related fees has not been adopted by the Medicines Control Agency, as authorised by the Medicines Act 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No ruling has been given prohibiting the MCA from charging turnover-related fees. In order to meet the criteria for exemption from gross running cost control the agency has to be self financing from receipts which vary in line with the demand for its services. Another requirement was that such fees had to be seen as related to the cost of the services provided: a turnover-related levy could not satisfy this criterion.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what statutory authority the Medicines Control Agency budget for 1990–91 is projected to make a net profit.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Medicines (Fixing of Fees Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use) Order 1989 SI 1989 No. 684 sets out the matters to be taken into account in setting fees under the Medicines Act 1971. There is no statutory requirement to make a net profit, but any past deficit is subsequently recovered.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define the interpretation and meaning of the exemption from gross running costs control, applied to the operation of the Medicines Control Agency.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The meaning of running cost control and of exemption from such control is explained in paragraph 21.3.10 of the 1990 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1021). The Medicines Control Agency, while remaining part of the Department of Health, may be exempted from gross running cost control provided 628
  certain conditions are met, one of which is that its costs, excluding British Pharmacopoeia Commission activities, are recovered from fees payable by licence holders and applicants. Like other parts of the Department, the MCA is required to submit a bid for funds each year. The effect of exemption from gross running cost control is that, once funds have been voted by Parliament, the MCA will not be subject to a reduction in those funds, otherwise than by supplementary estimates submitted to and approved by Parliament or other parliamentary instructions.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the statutory instruments or other legislation which sets out the establishment and basis of the existence of the Medicines Control Agency.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No statutory instrument or other legislation was needed to establish the Medicines Control Agency.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the projected revenue, gross running costs and net profit or loss for the Medicines Control Agency for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest published figures are contained in the Department of Health supply estimates 1990–91 dated 20 March 1990, copies of which are available in the Library. The forecast net profit or loss figures for 1990–91 are not yet available. They await the completion of the agency's accounts for the year to 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when, and by what authority, the Medicines Control Agency became, or is proposed to become, an autonomous agency.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Medicines Control Agency is not an autonomous agency but remains part of the Department of Health. No decision has been taken on whether in due course it might become a next steps agency.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department has applied the provisions of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 in relation to the charging of licence fees for medicines on the turnover of a company and of a product as well as on a fixed basis, and authorisation of the Medicines Control Agency to fix charges on those criteria.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Until 31 March 1989 fees in relation to applications for licences or certificates under the Medicines Act 1968 were charged on two bases—an annual fee or turnover levy related to the turnover of licensed products and capital fees in relation to particular applications payable on submission of the application. From 1 April 1989 the annual fee was abolished.

  Section 21 of the Health and Medicines Act 1988 clarified the basis under which regulations could be made in relation to an annual fee and also validated the basis on which previous annual fees had been charged.

  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines setting out their relationship and terms of reference for the operation of the Medicines Control Agency have been issued by him.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Medicines Control Agency was set up from 1 April 1989 following the
  629
  recommendations of the Evans Cunliffe report on the control of medicines. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Health gave my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) on 14 April 1988 at column 206, indicating the particular recommendations which were accepted as the basis of the agency's operations.

  Nurses (Regrading)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are awaiting decisions on their regrading nationally, and in the Norwich health authority; and in each case, what percentage they are of total nurse employment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Operating Theatre Closures
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give by region the number of operating theatres closed in 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give by region the number of hospitals closed(a) wholly and (b) partly during 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table gives the numbers of hospitals or facilities which we are aware were approved for closure in total or in part in 1989. It is important to bear in mind that closures are often balanced by openings or other reprovision.

  Region

  (a) Whole

  (b) Part

  Northern

  2

  5

  Yorkshire

  4

  2

  Trent

  13

  7

  East Anglia

  1

  —

  North West Thames

  1

  1

  North East Thames

  2

  —

  South East Thames

  4

  5

  South West Thames

  2

  3

  Wessex

  4

  —

  Oxford

  2

  11

  South Western

  4

  2

  West Midlands

  6

  5

  Mersey

  5

  3

  North Western

  5

  2

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis he will set the annual financing limit for each national health service hospital trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will set the external financing limit for each trust annually in the light of the trust's business plan and available resources.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the target number of national health service trusts to be developed for ministerial approval set by the national health service management executive in its 1990–91 operational programme.
  630
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NHS management executive has indicated that it aims to develop for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's approval approximately 50 NHS trusts. There is no firm target and some 80 Health Service units currently intend to prepare applications for NHS trust status in April 1991, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the financial proformas to be submitted by national health service trust status applicants.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The supporting financial statements to be submitted by applicants for NHS trust status will include detailed information on their financial plans which it would not be appropriate to make publicly available.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those potential first-wave trusts identified by the Department's analysis of regions short-term programmes as having problems eliminating underlying deficits in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. The NHS management executive is engaged in continuing discussions with regional health authorities. Such information is not yet available.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to employ outside consultants to evaluate national health service trust applications.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Outside consultants will assist the Department in the analysis of financial management and information systems in potential NHS trusts as part of the assessment of trust applications when the necessary legislation has been passed.

  District Health Authority Allocations
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each district health authority its(a) population, (b) revenue allocation, (c) capital allocation, (d) revenue allocation expressed as a sum per head of population and (e) capital allocation expressed as a sum per head of population.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Financial allocations are made to regional health authorities. Information is not held centrally about allocations made by regions to their districts.

  Blood
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will identify for each national health service region the value of sales of blood and blood products outside national health service services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 23 May 1990]: Health authorities make a handling charge designed to recover the costs of supplying whole blood and blood components to non-NHS hospitals. No charge is made for the blood itself which is freely donated by volunteer donors.

  Information derived from the annual accounts of health authorities for 1988–89 (the latest available) is as follows:

  631

  Income from blood handling charges

  Region

  (£)

  Northern

  17,930

  Yorkshire

  61,198

  Trent

  66,069

  East Anglia

  67,564

  North West Thames

  621,618

  North East Thames

  82,686

  South East Thames

  474,276

  South West Thames

  Essex

  87,733

  Oxford

  92,085

  South Western

  92,833

  West Midlands

  203,333

  Mersey

  19,597

  North Western

  93,725

  Totals

  1,980,647

  Information on the sales of blood products manufactured by the bio-products laboratory, whether to NHS or non-NHS hospitals is commercially confidential.

  Net weekly income

  Net weekly income after housing costs and community charge

  Marginal deduction rate

  October 1989

  April 1990

  October 1989

  April 1990

  October 1989

  April 1990

  Single person

  Gross earnings (per week)

  50

  65·49

  68·19

  39·69

  41·77

  86

  82

  100

  82·4

  83·67

  56·6

  57·25

  34

  34

  150

  115·4

  116·67

  89·6

  90·25

  34

  34

  200

  148·4

  149·67

  122·6

  123·25

  34

  34

  Married couple

  Gross earnings (per week)

  50

  72·81

  79·17

  47·01

  46·04

  90

  90

  100

  92·88

  102·92

  67·08

  69·79

  90

  87

  150

  123·04

  127·08

  97·24

  93·95

  34

  44

  200

  156·04

  157·94

  130·24

  124·81

  34

  34

  Married couple, two children (assumed aged 5 and 12)

  Gross earnings (per week)

  50

  131·86

  143·05

  101·06

  106·15

  86

  82

  100

  134·22

  146·55

  103·42

  109·65

  84

  80

  150

  143·57

  154·96

  112·77

  118·06

  80

  80

  200

  170·54

  173·14

  139·74

  136·24

  34

  34

  Note — The methods and assumptions are those used in the published Tax/Benefit Model Tables except that from April 1990 community charge is assumed at £350 per annum and assumed national average rents have been inflated for 1990.

  Residential Care
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the Government's response to the second report of the House of Commons Social Services Committee of the current Session, on the future funding of private and voluntary residential care.

  Mr. Newton
  The response was laid before Parliament yesterday.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give figures for spending on income support for people living in private residential care in Sunderland for each year from 1985 including the first quarter of 1990;

  (2) if he will give the number of people in Sunderland who are in receipt of income support and who are living in private residential care for each year since 1985 including the first quarter of 1990

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Charge
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the net weekly and marginal tax rate spending of(a) a single person, (b) a married couple, one working, (c) a man and wife and two children, one parent working, whose wage was £50, £100, £150 and £200, respectively, after taking into account income tax and national insurance and any benefits or rebates to which they could be entitled (i) before 1 April and (ii) after 1 April, to show the effect of the introduction of the community charge.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The answer is set out in the tables. It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large. The tables use hypothetical community charges and rents, so they do not reflect the full range of community charge and housing costs which people can pay.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that information in the form requested is not available.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of people in Sunderland who are in receipt of attendance allowance for 1988, 1989 and the first quarter of 1990; and how many receive payments from the independent living fund.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of people in Sunderland who are in receipt of severe disability premium for 1988 and 1989.
  633
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. O
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for the delays in resolving the case of Mr. O reference RM173P/C0999/71/ 83/3; and what steps have been taken to resolve this case.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that we are unable to identify this case from the information supplied. If the hon. Member will let me have full details I shall be pleased to look into the matter.

  Disallowed Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information is available regarding the duration of periods of unemployment benefit disqualification imposed in each quarter since April 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No information is available on the duration of periods of unemployment benefit disqualification since April 1989.

  Hardship payments of income support to claimants who were not available for full time work or who had not actively sought work

  Social Security Region

  North East

  Midlands

  London North

  London South

  Wales and South West

  North West

  Scotland

  National Total

  Number of hardship payments where claimant:

  October 1989

  Was unavailable1:

  Awards made

  20

  12

  37

  32

  41

  23

  13

  178

  Awards refused

  12

  10

  12

  15

  38

  15

  10

  112

  Did not actively seek work:

  Awards made

  4

  5

  12

  2

  5

  3

  12

  43

  Awards refused

  1

  4

  0

  5

  3

  3

  11

  27

  November 1989

  Was unavailable1:

  Awards made

  17

  16

  78

  71

  27

  13

  19

  241

  Awards refused

  17

  13

  14

  16

  35

  15

  11

  121

  Did not actively seek work:

  Awards made

  3

  8

  16

  14

  8

  3

  29

  81

  Awards refused

  1

  2

  1

  11

  6

  3

  14

  38

  December 1989

  Was unavailable1:

  Awards made

  41

  17

  223

  35

  33

  14

  16

  379

  Awards refused

  12

  8

  10

  16

  15

  10

  6

  77

  Did not actively seek work:

  Awards made

  5

  5

  23

  9

  7

  3

  7

  59

  Awards refused

  3

  3

  2

  1

  4

  1

  1

  15

  January 1990

  Was unavailable1:

  Awards made

  30

  18

  56

  42

  61

  11

  17

  235

  Awards refused

  9

  7

  17

  11

  39

  12

  19

  114

  Did not actively seek work:

  Awards made

  5

  5

  29

  7

  10

  4

  6

  66

  Awards refused

  1

  3

  5

  1

  2

  4

  7

  23

  February 1990

  Was unavailable1:

  Awards made

  33

  10

  70

  28

  28

  21

  23

  213

  Awards refused

  9

  5

  12

  4

  26

  8

  23

  87

  Did not actively seek work:

  Awards made

  7

  11

  19

  6

  9

  2

  4

  58

  Awards refused

  6

  3

  3

  1

  2

  0

  2

  17

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, (Mr. Field), on 8 May,Official Report, column 87, what was the proportion and number of income support and unemployment benefit claimants who (i) successfully and (ii) unsuccessfully claimed reduced income support under the hardship rules in each month since 9 October 1989 and, for each category, the numbers whose claim was in doubt due to (a) actively seeking work, (b) availability and (c) restricted availability, and the numbers in each case whose claim was awaiting adjudication, had been disallowed, or was subsequently allowed; and if he will break the figures down by region.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The statistics kept are given in the table. The remainder of the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  635

  Social Security Region

  North East

  Midlands

  London North

  London South

  Wales and South West

  North West

  Scotland

  National Total

  March 1990

  Was unavailable1:

  Awards made

  27

  10

  78

  24

  29

  24

  30

  222

  Awards refused

  8

  7

  17

  7

  20

  10

  12

  81

  Did not actively seek work:

  Awards made

  11

  3

  27

  10

  18

  3

  14

  86

  Awards refused

  0

  3

  4

  2

  8

  3

  1

  21

  April 1990

  Was unavailable1:

  Awards made

  37

  13

  39

  13

  41

  20

  13

  176

  Awards refused

  18

  9

  3

  4

  16

  8

  4

  62

  Did not actively seek work:

  Awards made

  5

  3

  15

  10

  8

  3

  1

  45

  Awards refused

  1

  0

  5

  15

  4

  4

  3

  32

  1 Includes unavailability for total or part week, and unreasonable restriction on occupation where appropriate.

  Notes:1. All figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  2. No individual figure in the table exceeds 0·01 per cent. of the latest available number of Income Support claimants.

  Actively Seeking Work Test
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps have been and are being taken to improve liaison between adjudication officers in the Departments of Employment and Social Security in respect of adjudication on actively seeking work; and if he will make a statement on the process of adjudication in both Departments on claimants whose actively seeking work is brought into question, and the benefit sanctions which can be imposed by the staff in each Department before and after adjudication.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Instructions are in place to ensure close liaison between the Department and the employment service. These instructions are kept under review.

  When a doubt arises as to whether a claimant is actively seeking work unemployment benefit is suspended for the weeks of doubt, usually the two weeks since the claimant was last paid. The case is then referred to an employment service adjudication officer to make a decision on title to unemployment benefit. If only income support is in payment he gives an opinion. If he decides that the claimant did not actively seek work, unemployment benefit will be disallowed. His decision/opinion is passed to the Department of Social Security adjudication officer to help him decide what income support should be paid. This happens for each fortnight during which the claimant fails to fulfil the actively seeking work condition.

  The Department of Social Security adjudication officer has to decide entitlement to income support, and, if awaiting the employment service adjudication officer's decision/opinion, will assume it to be adverse to the claimant. Income support will then be withdrawn until such time as he satisfies the adjudication officer that he is again actively seeking work. If, in the adjudication officer's opinion, hardship will result, income support reduced by 40 per cent. of the personal allowance element can be paid. If the employment service adjudication officer's subsequent decision/opinion is that the claimant did actively seek work, arrears of benefit can be paid.

  Wath upon Dearne Office
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what expenditure has been incurred in the maintenance or improvement of the Wath upon Dearne office of his Department during the last five years; and what further expenditure on this office is planned.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Expenditure incurred over the last five years has been as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure

  (£)

  1985–86

  10,581

  1986–87

  39,444

  1987–88

  53,173

  1988–89

  65,530

  1989–90

  103,713

  Total

  272,441

  The projected expenditure for 1990–91 is around £18,000.

  Rotherham Offices
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of persons employed at each of the offices of his Department within the metropolitan borough of Rotherham.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total number of such persons employed on 30 May 1990 was 278. This figure consists of 74·5 staff employed in Rotherham North and 203·5 in Rotherham South local offices.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each month since October 1989 the number of(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful appeals by unemployed claimants against benefit sanctions arising from (i) actively seeking work, (ii) refusal of employment and (iii) restricted availability by social security region; and if he will make arrangements to place these decisions and future decisions in the Library.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on unemployment benefit appeals is not available for any period later than
  637
  the quarter ending 30 September 1989. Moreover statistics are not routinely produced showing the breakdown of decisions within an overall benefit category.

  The publication of decisions of the social security appeal tribunals is a matter for the president of the social security and medical appeal tribunals, his Honour Judge Holden, and the hon. Member may wish to contact him direct.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of energy audits carried out in his Department in the last five years and for each audit a statement of its main conclusions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Information is not readily available for the years 1985–86 and 1986–87. During the subsequent three years energy surveys were carried out in 30 DH/DSS buildings. The main conclusions are shown as follows:

  1. Convert tungsten lighting to compact fluorescent lighting.

  2. Adjust boiler controls to avoid overheating during occupancy.

  3. Adjust boiler controls to eliminate unnecessary heating
  during silent hours.

  4. Install water meters.

  5. Install controls to restrict the flow of water to taps and urinals.

  6. Change fluorescent tubes to a high efficacy type.

  7. Improve number of switches available to staff to enable them to control their lighting.

  8. Remedy defects to window frames.

  9. Maintain records of the utilities.

  10. Display "Energy Management" posters for publicity

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Information is only available for DH/DSS jointly, from the financial year 1985–86. The figures are in the table.

  Year

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Cash terms (£ million)

  11·76

  9·68

  9·8

  9·95

  1985–86 money terms (£ million)

  11·76

  10·09

  10·73

  9·86

  Therms (million)

  13·54

  8·5

  8·4

  7·8

  kWh (million)

  110

  110

  130

  130

  Litres (million)

  9·5

  9·05

  9·05

  4·6

  Tonnes

  7,314

  8,230

  7,077

  4,250

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Duchy intends to appoint a dedicated energy manager devoted to energy management; and what advice he provides to leaseholders of Duchy-owned buildings about energy efficiency.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Duchy has no plans to appoint a dedicated manager devoted to energy management, or to 638
  offer advice to its leaseholders about energy efficiency. Under the terms of lease Duchy tenants are responsible for their own energy management and consumption.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Supplies (North-East)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in the north-east were disconnected from their water supplies in 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information on disconnections is available by water company areas only. The numbers of household disconnections by the former Northumbrian and Yorkshire water authorities and by the statutory water companies (SWCs) operating in their areas were as follows:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Northumbrian WA

  480

  770

  Yorkshire WA

  560

  945

  SWCs1

  Hartlepools

  n/a

  120

  Newcastle

  n/a

  558

  Sunderland

  n/a

  70

  York

  n/a

  79

  1 Total disconnections, household and non-household.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for he Environment how many local authorities have facilities for the collection of clinical waste.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is currently conducting a review of clinical waste management systems, but there is no comprehensive information available at present. Every waste collection authority has a duty to collect all clinical waste that is also household waste and a duty to collect any such commercial waste if requested to do so.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities charge for the collection of clinical waste from(a) private nursing homes, (b) voluntary sector residential homes and (c) private dwellings under the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988; and on what basis each local authority charges for its collections.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on local authority charges is not held centrally. DOE circular 13/88 (Welsh Office circular 19/88) advises local authorities that charges should be realistic and should have a direct relationship to the cost of providing the service.

  Local Government Officers
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what number of people will be excluded by the change of qualifying date to 1 April 1986 from buying back reckonable service under the local government officers' superannuation scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not available.
  639
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total cost of providing pensions for part-time local government officers who retired between 1974 and 1 April 1986.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is not possible to provide an estimate, since the number of retired officers concerned is not known.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reason the original qualifying date of 1974 for the superannuation scheme for local government officers was replaced by a new qualifying date of 1 April 1986.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  When pensions for part-time employees in local government were first established by the Local Government Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1987 it was not possible to backdate them beyond 1 April 1986 because of the destruction of pay records for earlier years and the need to avoid double payment of pensions where employees had been contributors to SERPS. For similar reasons, it will not be possible to apply the new draft regulations now being circulated for purchase of added years before that date.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to finalise the regulations to permit part-time local government officers to join the superannuation scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Part-time local government officers were first admitted to the local government superannuation scheme under the terms of the Local Government Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1987. Further regulations to allow these employees to purchase additional service at a concessionary rate are currently the subject of consultation with local government. It is hoped to make them as soon as possible once the responses to the consultation have been considered.

  Shetland Seabirds
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the research projects commissioned by the Nature Conservancy Council into the breeding failure of Shetland seabirds, together with relevant dates and sums allocated.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows:

  Funds allocated

  £

  1986–87

  Survey of Skuas in Shetland

  700

  Development of monitoring methods

  24,700

  Breeding performance of terns in Shetland

  2,000

  1987–88

  The role of food supply in the breeding success of arctic terns in Shetland

  10,800

  Breeding performance of Hermaness seabirds

  300

  Development of monitoring methods

  28,300

  1988–89

  The role of food supply in the breeding success of arctic terns

  8,348

  Seminar on Shetland sandeels and seabirds

  500

  Breeding performance of Hermaness seabirds

  400

  640

  Funds allocated

  £

  Skua breeding performance in Shetland

  2,000

  Development of monitoring methods

  29,993

  1989–90

  The role of food supply in the breeding success of arctic terns

  8,000

  Breeding performance of Hermaness seabirds

  400

  Skua breeding performance in Shetland

  3,500

  Seabird monitoring programme

  33,600

  1990–91

  Study of sandeel biology in waters around Shetland

  35,000

  Seabird monitoring programme

  35,000

  Breeding performance of Hermaness seabirds

  465

  Skua breeding performance in Shetland

  300

  Attlebridge Tip, Norfolk
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what toxic substances are dumped in the tip at Attlebridge, Norfolk.

  Mr. Trippier
  The responsibility for determining which substances may be deposited at waste disposal facilities rests with the disposal authority who exercise this control through the conditions of the site licence. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 requires that each disposal authority maintains, for public inspection, a register containing copies of all disposal licences issued by that authority and currently in force. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. Member should apply to Norfolk county council for the information he seeks.

  Toxic Wastes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the text of the recent letter sent to the Major of Rotherham, Councillor Ron Hughes, by his right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside concerning his Department's involvement in the problem of toxic wastes imported to Wath Recycling in Rotherham.

  Mr. Trippier
  Councillor Hughes wrote to me, at the close of his year of office as Mayor of Rotherham, seeking an announcement about a solution to the problem of imported wastes at Wath Recycling. I replied to him on 18 May explaining that we have been working closely with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to secure a settlement between the parties to avoid lengthy litigation. This involves a programme of action to secure the return of as much waste as possible to the USA and to deal with the remainder in an environmentally sound manner. Agreement to any such programme still depends on a number of aspects under investigation.

  I invited Councillor Hughes and local hon. Members to make my letter public if they wished and I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

  Electro-osmosis
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he possesses on the process developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and recently made public, to clean up contaminated soils of hazardous waste substances using a technique called electro-osmosis.
  641
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My officials are aware of the MIT process and have been monitoring its progress. There have been commercial applications involving electro-osmosis in the United Kingdom but not so far involving the treatment of contaminated land.

  Landslides
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment has been made by his Department, or consultants to his Department, of the dangers posed from potential landslides; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department has been actively commissioning research on landslides since the mid-1970s and is continuing so to do. A list of relevant projects is appended to this answer. Initially work was concentrated in the valleys of the south Wales coalfield, where landslides had been known to cause problems for many years.

  However, in 1984, it was recognised that the information on landsliding in Britain as a whole was deficient and a national review of research into landsliding in Great Britain which aimed to discover what work had been done on landslides in Britain, to assess its general applicability and to identify any gaps in knowledge and priorities for any further work needed was undertaken. This review was completed towards the end of 1987. The detailed results are available in the Department's library and a summary report will shortly be published.

  The results of this work have assisted in providing the basis for planning policy guidance (PPG 14) on development on unstable land which was issued by my Department and the Welsh Office on 30 April.

  Research on landslides funded by the Department of the Environment

  South Wales coalfield landslip survey Institute of Geological Sciences 1977–80

  A study of two landslipped areas in the South Wales coalfield Institute of Geological Sciences 1981–83

  East Pentwyn and Bournville landslips research project Sir William Halcrow and Partners 1983–85

  Assessment of landslip potential South Wales Sir William Halcrow and Partners 1984–86

  Stability and hydrogeology of deep mineral Workings The Geoffrey Walton Practice 1984–86

  Review of research into landsliding in Great Britain Geomorphological Services Limited 1984–87

  Landslides database and publications Geomorphological Services Limited 1988–90

  Rhondda landslip potential assessment Sir William Halcrow and Partners 1988–90

  Landslips and undermining Sir William Halcrow and Partners 1987–90

  642

  Coastal landslip potential assessment Isle of Wight Undercliff, Ventnor Geomorphological Services Limited 1988–90

  Handbook on the design of tips and backfilled areas in quarries

  The Geoffrey Walton Practice 1989–90.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research is being undertaken for his Department on the greenhouse effect by the James Rennel centre for ocean circulation at Southampton university.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department is not commissioning any research at the James Rennell centre for ocean circulation at this time. The centre is currently being established by the natural environment research council at Southampton university with funding from the science budget. It will open in October 1990.

  Romanian Oil Refineries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to making available pollution control expertise gained in the United Kingdom oil industry to Romania to assist in environmental clean up of the oil refineries in Ploiesti.

  Mr. Trippier
  The extent of the environmental damage by the communist regimes in eastern Europe requires international assistance. The United Kingdom is acting primarily through a joint programme co-ordinated by the European Commission. This programme is expected to extend to Romania. In the United Kingdom the oil industry would no doubt consider requests by the Romanian Government where it could offer practical assistance.

  Atmospheric Conditions (Monitoring)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to the answer of 1 May,Official Report, columns 502–3, if he will give comparable figures on nitrogen dioxide, ozone and acidity of rain at each of the monitoring sites then in operation for each year since 1979; (2) pursuant to the answer of 1 May, Official Report, columns 502–3, if he will give comparable figures for suphur dioxide concentrations in each region for every year since 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is in the table. Additional data have been published in the relevant Department of the Environment scientific review group and other reports: "Ozone in the United Kingdom" (United Kingdom photochemical oxidants review group), "Acidity in United Kingdom Fresh Waters" (United Kingdom acid waters review group second report), "Acid Deposition in the United Kingdom" (United Kingdom review group on acid rain second report) and "Lake Acidification in the United Kingdom" (paleoecology research unit, University College London). Copies of these publications have been placed in the Library of the House.
  643

  A. NO2 annual mean (am) and 98th percentile (98 percentile):

  Units: parts per billion (ppb).

  Site

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  EC Directive sites

  Central London

  am

  34

  33

  35

  43

  39

  43

  32

  35

  39

  35

  39

  98 percentile

  64

  66

  71

  110

  73

  81

  63

  64

  85

  74

  80

  West London

  am

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  37

  42

  98 percentile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  84

  92

  112

  Glasgow

  am

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  30

  27

  98 percentile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  69

  57

  61

  Manchester

  am

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  28

  25

  98 percentile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  67

  62

  Walsall

  am

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  26

  29

  98 percentile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  62

  54

  59

  Billingham

  am

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  21

  22

  98 percentile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  63

  58

  60

  Non Directive sites:

  Cromwell Road

  am

  36

  —

  —

  46

  68

  50

  48

  40

  —

  —

  45

  98 percentile

  82

  —

  —

  117

  209

  119

  128

  109

  —

  —

  105

  Stevenage

  am

  24

  18

  19

  22

  20

  23

  —

  21

  27

  24

  25

  98 percentile

  71

  43

  50

  54

  47

  57

  —

  52

  72

  53

  56

  B. Ozone: exceedances of 60pph hourly average

  Site

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Stevenage

  64

  11

  7

  242

  178

  324

  108

  89

  36

  10

  85

  Central London

  29

  15

  31

  10

  6

  6

  146

  68

  9

  3

  74

  Sibton

  66

  2

  358

  157

  207

  72

  63

  —

  46

  76

  212

  Aston Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  45

  83

  143

  Lullington Heath

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  106

  112

  401

  Strath Vaigh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  53

  28

  High Muffles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  49

  184

  Lough Navar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  49

  74

  Yarner Wood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  51

  360

  Ladybower

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  173

  Harwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  117

  173

  70

  77

  51

  16

  170

  Bottesford

  503

  458

  54

  238

  138

  201

  94

  93

  59

  10

  82

  Bush

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  53

  33

  63

  Eskdalemuir

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  49

  28

  99

  Great Dun Fell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  96

  167

  131

  204

  Wharley Croft

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  36

  34

  129

  Glazebury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  39

  C. Acidity of rain as precipitation weighted mean acidity in microgramme equivalents per litre:

  Site

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Achanarras

  —

  19

  25

  25

  Strath Vaigh Dam

  —

  16

  16

  13

  River Mharcaidh

  22

  22

  21

  20

  Glen Dye

  —

  45

  46

  36

  Balquhidder

  21

  32

  24

  20

  Whiteadder

  40

  36

  47

  35

  Eskdalemuir

  21

  25

  27

  20

  Redesdale

  41

  44

  52

  33

  Loch Dee

  29

  23

  19

  15

  Cow Green Reservoir

  27

  31

  34

  23

  Bannisdale

  30

  27

  28

  24

  High Muffles

  —

  63

  72

  55

  Thorganby

  75

  73

  88

  84

  Jenny Hum

  89

  100

  85

  64

  Driby

  42

  43

  42

  47

  Wardlow Hay Cop

  29

  45

  33

  37

  644 645

  Site

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Beddgelert

  17

  19

  17

  15

  Bottesford

  61

  76

  81

  48

  Plynlimon

  —

  15

  11

  14

  Stoke Ferry

  35

  36

  30

  40

  Preston Montford

  18

  25

  25

  36

  Llyn Brianne

  16

  21

  18

  19

  Tycanol Wood

  16

  17

  15

  18

  Woburn

  45

  51

  37

  37

  Flatford Mill

  33

  43

  35

  35

  Compton

  25

  28

  16

  25

  Barcombe Mills

  19

  22

  13

  15

  Yarner Wood

  17

  20

  14

  20

  Goonhilly

  20

  23

  15

  19

  Lough Navar

  11

  10

  10

  10

  Hillsborough Forest

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Isle of Man

  28

  34

  27

  24

  D. SO2 concentrations by region

  Units: microgrammes per cubic meter

  Region

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Scotland

  60

  49

  53

  40

  40

  43

  38

  36

  32

  North

  54

  42

  43

  35

  33

  30

  30

  33

  35

  North West

  84

  63

  63

  49

  48

  44

  39

  38

  41

  Yorks/Humber

  86

  69

  78

  68

  67

  59

  57

  51

  50

  East Midlands

  76

  58

  65

  54

  54

  47

  45

  47

  46

  West Midlands

  73

  61

  64

  54

  57

  49

  44

  44

  39

  Wales

  48

  41

  39

  35

  35

  36

  28

  26

  24

  East Anglia

  51

  50

  50

  35

  34

  28

  25

  27

  24

  London

  78

  68

  66

  55

  47

  48

  39

  42

  37

  South East

  57

  50

  46

  39

  37

  38

  37

  37

  31

  South West

  49

  45

  43

  37

  35

  34

  37

  34

  25

  Northern Ireland

  47

  40

  47

  56

  46

  58

  64

  70

  67

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to apply section 28 of the Local Government Act 1972 to England.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer, 5 June 1990]: No: there seem to be no compelling reason to change the present arrangements in England for creating or dissolving parish councils.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Information on my Department's energy consumption is not available in the form requested. New monitoring systems not in place will ensure that detailed consumption information will be available in the future and will assist in measuring the success of our energy conservation programme.

  Sewage Works
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all outstanding applications for(a) long sea outfalls, and (b) sewage treatment works.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: Responsibility for granting consents for discharges made
  646
  by the water services companies rests with the National Rivers Authority. This responsibility includes the determination of all undetermined applications submitted to the Department by the former water authorities which, under the transitional provisions of the Water Act 1989, are treated as if they had been made by the water services company to the National Rivers Authority.

  The only exceptions to these are applications that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called in for his own consideration. In the case of sewage treatment works, these were applications from the former water authorities for time-limited consents for those works covered by the accelerated improvement programme announced by my hon. and learned Friend the then Minister for Housing and Planning on 7 December 1988 at column 199. All but those listed have been determined and my Department will shortly be writing to all objectors informing them of the outcome of each application.

  Anglian Water Authority—Bletsoe and Newton Blossomville

  Severn Trent Water Authority—Baschurch

  North West Water Authority—Rossendale and Rochdale

  Details of all outstanding applications are available from the public registers held by the National Rivers Authority.

  The Department has no outstanding applications in respect of discharge consents for long sea outfalls.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the information collected by the Property Services Agency about the use of energy in Government buildings.

  Mr. Chope
  The PSA collects no information about the use of energy in Government buildings, apart from that
  647
  required for its own energy management purposes. Responsibility for energy management rests with individual Departments and, centrally, with the Department of Energy.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will confirm the charge cap of Hillingdon borough council.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have today laid before the House of Commons a draft order under section 104 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 stating that the amount ("the cap") which Hillingdon's budget for 1990–91 is not to exceed is £141,700,000. If the House approves the draft I shall make the order and serve on the council as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter a notice confirming the amount of Hillingdon's final cap. The way will then be clear for the council to set a new, lower budget within the capped amount and for the charge payers of Hillingdon to benefit from the lower charge that will ensue.

WALES

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (Chief Executive)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice or instructions were given by his Department to the board of the Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the appointment of a chief executive in 1987–88; and if he will list his powers and responsibilities in relation to such appointments.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Under the provisions of schedule 26 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 sole responsibility for the appointment of the chief executive rests with the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will decide whether to authorise a subsidiary dialysis unit at Wrexham Maelor hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Agreement in principle to fund a subsidiary renal unit at Wrexham Maelor hospital was announced on 21 May and Clwyd health authority has been invited to submit appropriate proposals to the Welsh Office.

  Operating Theatre Closures
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of operating theatres closed in 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Figures on numbers of operating theatres were first collected as at 31 March 1989. Subsequently, quarterly figures have been collected. Provisional figures show a net gain of two operating theatres during the period from 1 April to 31 December 1989.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of hospitals closed(a) wholly and (b) partly during 1989.
  648
  Mr. David Hunt
  There were no closures of hospitals in 1989. 13 permanent partial closures were implemented in the year on service rationalisation and policy grounds.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will identify the location and status of waste disposal sites in Wales by waste disposal authorities, waste type, town, location of facility, name of facility and land size.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on waste disposal sites is held on the public registers required to be maintained by district councils in Wales, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the relevant authority of authorities.

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of dwellings in each district in Wales are insulated to the standard recommended by his Department.

  Mr. Grist
  All new houses have to meet the standards of insulation specified in building regulations. No information is available centrally giving the number of houses which meet these standards.

SCOTLAND

  National Health Service
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health boards in Scotland will remain within budget in the current year.

  Mr. Rifkind
  All health boards are required to remain within resources made available to them.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the chairman of Lothian health board to discuss the financing of the board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Yes.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new investment and improvements his Department has made to health services in Scotland so far this year.

  Mr. Forsyth
  I do not wish to detain the House with a lengthy list, but improvements include the helicopter ambulance, the commitment of a heart transplant service and a number of new hospital projects including a maternity unit for Moray.

  Sir Heċtor Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new developments he is proposing for the national health service in Scotland.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for health recently announced six substantial new developments for the national health service in Scotland. First, he has asked Grampian health board to prepare detailed proposals for a new specialist maternity unit in Elgin and for a new cottage hospital in Peterhead. Both units are to be developed on the existing hospital sites. Tayside health board's proposals for a new hospital in Crieff to replace outdated facilities at Crieff cottage
  649
  hospital and Bridge of Earn hospital have been approved. Together these three capital projects represent an investment of some £20 million in the NHS estate.

  The helicopter ambulance services based on Inverness will be centrally funded to serve the more remote parts of Scotland and allow rapid transfer of patients requiring urgent hospital treatment. This will cost some £600,000.

  A new national service for the rehabilitation of brain-injured patients is to be established to complement and enhance the work already being carried out in the NHS and the private sector. It is estimated that there are around 500 patients in Scotland who would likely to benefit from intensive specialised rehabilitation services, many of whom are young people whose quality of life could be vastly enhanced if these facilities were available.

  Finally, I am delighted that Scotland is to get its first heart and heart/lung transplant unit so that Scots patients do not have to travel to England for transplant surgery. Many Scots have benefited from the service in England but the long journeys are distressing for very ill patients and their relatives. A new Scottish unit will be much more accessible and will build on the considerable improvements in cardiac surgery in Scotland, which now carry out 2,500 cardiac operations a year.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with Grampian health board on its 10-year development strategy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Health Boards are required to submit strategic plans and my officials meet boards regularly to review and monitor progress.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Lothian health board to discuss its funding problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The chief executive of the NHS in Scotland has been in regular contact with the Lothian health hoard chairman and officials over recent weeks about the board's financial problems.

  Newbattle Abbey College
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland following receipt of the proposals from the governors of Newbattle Abbey college to the Scottish Education Department meeting the points raised by the Secretary of State when he withdrew grant aid to that college last year, whether he is now in a position to announce his intention to restore grant aid to the college.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has considered the plan submitted to him recently by the governors of Newbattle Abbey college and has concluded that it does not represent a basis for reopening his decision to withdraw direct funding for the college. The trustees and the board of governors have been advised of this decision.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the Government's community care proposals.
  650
  Mr. Lang
  I have had two wide-ranging and constructive discussions with representatives of the convention's social work committee on this subject—one on 8 September 1989 and the other on 15 May 1990.

  Edinburgh Royal Hospital for Sick Children
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the waiting time between arrival of emergency cases and examination of those cases at the Edinburgh Royal Hospital for Sick Children.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that Lothian health board is taking action to minimise delays by increasing the number of doctors and changing the doctors' rota system.

  Passenger Ferry Services
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met both the chairman and the chief executive of Caledonian MacBrayne to discuss passenger ferry services in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend has not met the chairman or chief executive of Caledonian MacBrayne since he took the company into his direct ownership on 2 April. However, my noble Friend the Minister of State and I met the
  to meet the full board of the company on 25 June. Regular and frequent discussions take place between officials of the Scottish Development Department and Caledonian MacBrayne.

  Self-governing Schools
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools in Scotland have formally expressed interest in opting out.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools in Scotland have expressed interest in opting out.

  Mr. Lang
  At one school, Holm primary school in Orkney, parents have presented the school board with a formal request seeking a ballot on self-governing status.

  Local Government
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to devolve more powers to Scottish local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We propose to delegate to local authorities further powers to issue relaxations of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations. This would take effect early next year at the same time as proposed new building standards regulations come into force.

  Housing
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he intends to take with respect to solving Scotland's housing problem.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he intends to take with respect to solving Scotland's housing problem.
  651
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).

  Ancillary Staff
  Mr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any representation on the reimbursement of ancillary staff costs via general practitioners in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Eight general practitioners in Scotland have made representations.

  Incomes
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by how much average real incomes in Scotland have risen since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  It is estimated that between 1979 and 1989 the average earnings of full-time employees on adult rates in Scotland grew by a quarter (25 per cent.) in real terms.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet trade union representatives from the Scottish steel industry to discuss investment in the Scottish steel industry.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend gave today to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).

  Nuclear Waste
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the siting of a nuclear waste repository in the Highlands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend received a number of representations about the siting of a nuclear waste repository during his consideration of the appeal lodged by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority against Highland regional council's decision to refuse planning permission for the drilling of two test boreholes at Dounreay. However, these representations were not relevant to that appeal, which related only to the application for test drilling. Any proposal for a nuclear waste repository would be the subject of a separate planning application and any objections which it attracted would be considered in that context.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to removing the funding of education from local authority control.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  COSLA
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government.
  652
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 2 May.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the first year of the administration of the poll tax.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the president and other senior officers of the convention on 6 April. This was the first of this year's meetings to discuss Government support for local authority current expenditure in 1991–92. There was also some discussion of a progress report prepared by the convention on the first year of the administration of the community charge.

  Coronary Care
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to secure improved coronary care.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Cardiac surgery funding has been increased; a heart transplant unit is planned; and further educational initiatives will focus on the prevention of coronary heart disease.

  Freightliner Working Party
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Freightliner working party to discuss job prospects for Scotland, including those arising from the Channel tunnel project.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The remit of the Scottish Freight working group, one of a number of advisory groups set up by British Rail to advise it on the preparation of its plans for the provision of freight and passenger services to the Channel tunnel, has now been completed and there are no plans for the group to reconvene. My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware of the existence of a Freightliner working party.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many head teachers of mixed-sex secondary schools in Scotland are women; what is the total number of head teachers in such schools; and what percentage of that total are women.

  Mr. Lang
  Of 419 head teachers of public sector mixed-sex secondary schools in Scotland recorded in the school census of September 1988, 15 (4 per cent.) were women.

  Infertility Clinics
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average waiting time for a first appointment at an infertility clinic.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Lowland Scottish Bus Group
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the privatisation of the Lowland Scottish bus group.
  653
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 1 June 1990 that he has given his consent to the sale by the Scottish Transport Group of Lowland Scottish Omnibuses Ltd. to the company's management-employee buy-out team.

  Scottish Assembly
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the setting up of an assembly in Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Five letters in the past six months.

  Training
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the information on training matters, hitherto available through Parliamentary questions, which will be restricted under the heading of commercial confidential following the establishment of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Mr. Lang
  To the extent that information on training matters is regarded as commercial in confidence at present, it is likely to be so regarded in future; and conversely where such information is not presently regarded as commercial in confidence, it is not likely to be so regarded in future.

  Flooding, Tayside
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the aid which his Department has given to flood victims in Tayside; and what assistance his Department has received from the Tayside regional council and the Tay purification board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No claims have yet been received from farmers in Tayside in respect of the special assistance for the repair of elevated floodbanks. Similarly, claims from local authorities from assistance under the Bellwin arrangements are still awaited.

  The Scottish Office received valuable assistance from the Tay river purification board in the form of situation reports and detailed information on river levels and flows. The board also concluded that a flood warning system for the River Tay should be completed as soon as practicable. The Scottish Office endorsed this proposal by adjusting the board's borrowing consent to permit the necessary expenditure to be incurred this year.

  Tayside regional council acted as co-ordinators for the emergency services during the flood. Council staff operated the emergency control centre arid teams of workmen and equipment were supplied to meet problems as they arose. In addition, situation reports were provided to the Scottish Office.

  In response to a suggestion by my noble Friend the Minister of State, the regional council has taken the lead in co-ordinating the various interests concerned with river corridor management in the Tay area. The council has identified a need for an independent survey by expert hydrologists and has already interviewed consultants in this field about the terms of a possible brief for such a study. A meeting of interested parties is currently being arranged and will be held shortly.
  654
  For our part, the Government have agreed to contribute up to £10,000 towards the costs of the study and Scottish Office officials will continue to co-operate in these initiatives.

  Barrhead
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Development Agency about the regeneration of Barrhead.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no recent discussions with the SDA about the regeneration of Barrhead. However, following the meeting I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the agency is participating in the Barrhead regeneration study. A meeting to discuss the results of that study is planned for the middle of this month.

  The agency continues to be involved in plans to develop the vacant land on the Armitage Shanks site. It has also provided advice to the management on its recent buy-out of the stainless steel operation at Barrhead.

  A92–94
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the dualling of the A92–94 road Perth to Aberdeen to be completed and in operation: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  During the past decade the Government have given high priority to the upgrading of the Perth to Aberdeen route to dual carriageway. During this period, 12 schemes have been completed on the route at a total cost of £75 million. Three further schemes valued in total at nearly £20 million are currently under construction and are all programmed to be completed during this financial year. The penultimate improvement on this route is the £10 million Tarbrax to Forfar scheme, which is due to start construction later this year, leaving the Brechin bypass as the final improvement scheme to be undertaken. The necessary preparatory work and statutory procedures for this scheme are expected to be completed later this year and it will then be considered for a start date in light of its relative priority and available resources.

  Low flying
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in the light of the recommendations of the Defence Select Committee's recent report into low flying by the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Neubert
  I have been asked to reply. The Government are considering very carefully the report on low flying by the House of Commons Defence Commit tee and will respond to all its recommendations in their reply to the Committee.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since inception of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 the names of the 10 trustees who were most frequently appointed in sequestrations, and for each year the number of cases in which each was appointed.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  655

  Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985

  Appointments held by Individual Trustees 1986–1990

  Year and Permanent Trustee

  Number of Cases

  1986

  P. Armour, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Edinbugh

  25

  D. Jackson, Douglas Laing & Jackson, Glasgow

  22

  R. S. MacGregor, Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  18

  P. C. Taylor, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Edinburgh

  17

  O. Balfour, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Aberdeen

  17

  R. Blin, Pannel Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  16

  F. Blin, Cork Gully, Glasgow

  14

  A. Thomson, A. C. Thomson & Co, Dunfermline

  12

  R. B. Graham, Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  11

  G. I. Rankin, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Glasgow

  11

  1987

  O. Balfour, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Aberdeen

  65

  R. S. MacGregor, Pannel Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  43

  P. C. Taylor, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Edinburgh

  42

  F. Blin, Cork Gully, Glasgow

  38

  R. B. Graham, Cork Gully, Edinburgh

  31

  J. C. Readman, Arthur Young, Glasgow

  30

  D. Jackson, Douglas Laing & Jackson, Glasgow

  28

  K. Ross, Kenneth A Ross & Sharkey, Glasgow

  26

  G. I. Rankin, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Glasgow

  24

  R. L. Forbes, D. M. Campbell & Co, Dumfries

  24

  1988

  R. S. MacGregor, Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  206

  P. Campbell, Pannell Kerr Forster, Aberdeen

  129

  B. Jackson, Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  81

  J. C. Readman, Arthur Young, Glasgow

  50

  D. B. Jackson, Douglas Laing & Jackson, Glasgow

  33

  W. Cleghorn, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Edinburgh

  32

  T. Dyer, Scott Oswald & Co, Dundee

  30

  F. Blin, Cork Gully, Glasgow

  29

  G. I. Rankin, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Glasgow

  29

  P. C. Taylor, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Edinburgh

  27

  1989

  R. S. MacGregor, Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  383

  J. C. Readman, Ernst & Young, Glasgow

  244

  B. Jackson, Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  209

  N. Robinson, Kidsons, Glasgow

  177

  P. Campbell, Pannell Kerr Forster, Aberdeen

  162

  N. Sharp, Ernst & Young, Dundee

  55

  N. J. McNeil, BDO Binder Hamlyn, Glasgow

  55

  C. A. Hastings, C. A. F. Hastings & Co, Glasgow

  48

  A. O'Boyle, F. L. Walker, Glasgow

  44

  G. Ritchie, Ernst & Young, Edinburgh

  41

  1990 To Date

  R. S. MacGregor, Pannell Kerr Forster, Edinburgh

  72

  J. C. Readman, Ernst & Young, Glasgow

  57

  N. Robinson, Kidsons Impey, Glasgow

  37

  P. Campbell, Pannell Kerr Forster, Aberdeen

  24

  B. Jackson, Pannell Kerr Forster, Glasgow

  22

  N. J. McNeill, BDO Binder Hamlyn, Glasgow

  18

  N. Sharp, Ernst & Young, Dundee

  13

  G. Ritchie, Ernst & Young, Edinburgh

  13

  A O'Boyle, F. L. Walker & Co, Glasgow

  12

  J. D. Laurie, Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte, Edinburgh

  11

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of three and four-year-old children were receiving nursery education at local authority maintained nursery schools in each education authority area in Scotland(a) during the present academic year and (b) in 1979–80.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 15 May.

  Operating Theatre Closures
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give by health board the number of operating theatres closed in 1989.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Forth Valley health board closed and relocated five old theatres in 1989. Argyll and Clyde closed one pending refurbishment.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give by health board the number of hospitals closed(a) wholly and (b) partly during 1989.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There were no partial closures in 1989 but two hospitals in Lothian health board and two hospitals in Highland health board were wholly closed.

  During the same period six major hospital developments were completed, including phase 1 of St. John's hospital, Livingston.

  ICI (Explosives Dumping)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), of 17 May,Official Report, column 517, what steps he is taking to ensure no omission will occur in future publications of reports on disposal of waste at sea.

  Mr. Lang
  The figures previously given for 1986 and 1987 are being checked against the detailed Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland records of all dumping operations licensed under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Figures for 1988 and 1989 are being checked on the same basis. The corrected figures will be published as soon as possible.

  Appropriate instructions have now been issued to ensure that any figures given in future are derived directly from the records of licences issued. This should avoid unintended omissions.

  Sodium Leak, Dounreay
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what dangers were posed to the work force and local public in Caithness by the sodium leak at Dounreay nuclear power development establishment on 26 April.

  Mr. Lang
  There was no danger to either the work force or the general public from the incident at Dounreay on 24 April.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations lay behind the decision not to make public the leak of sodium at Dounreay nuclear power development establishment on 26 April.

  Mr. Lang
  I understand that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority included information about the incident which had occurred at Dounreay on the previous day in the site newsletter which was issued on 25 April, copies of which were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Dumping, Firth of Clyde
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what findings have emerged from the survey of the dump site for explosives at Birch Point in the Firth of Clyde; and if he will make a statement.
  657
  Mr. Lang
  A report on the survey, by a DAF research vessel from 14–17 May, and other investigations on the explosives dumped at the Birch Point site is in preparation and will be published as soon as possible. The visual evidence and observations of trawlers in the area confirm that there has been recent and continuing trawling of fishing gear across the dump site. A warning to steer clear of the area, with guidance on what to do if explosives are encountered in fishing nets, was given by notice to fishermen on 8 May and on 18 May. My right hon. and learned Friend will consider what further action may be necessary in the light of the final report.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what decisions he has reached about the bids submitted to him from local enterprise companies wishing to run training credits pilot schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I am delighted to announce that, of the three bids submitted to me, two have been approved for further development.

  The two successful bids are from Fife Enterprise and Grampian Enterprise, each of which will receive £10,000 to work up detailed bids by 27 July. Both successful bids offered imaginative approaches to mounting training credits pilot schemes in their area, and were able to demonstrate wide-ranging support from both the private and public sectors locally.

  I regret that the third bid—from Caithness and Sutherland Enterprise—was not successful. However it too had interesting elements, and I have therefore asked that the Training Agency Highland area office explore with the consortium the extent to which its ideas can be developed within the existing training framework.

  That two out of the three bids submitted from Scottish local enterprise companies succeeded on merits (as compared with 15 out of 29 bids submitted from England and Wales) clearly demonstrates the quality of these Scottish bids.

  I congratulate the two successful local enterprise companies on their efforts to date, and look forward to receiving their detailed bids in due course.

  Redundancies, Glasgow
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many notified redundancies there have been in the former GEAR area/east end of Glasgow in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 to date.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 May 1990]: Information is not available for the whole area specified but the numbers of redundancies, involving 10 or more workers, notified to the Department of Employment in the Parkhead jobcentre area are as follows:

  Numbers

  1987

  489

  1988

  1,074

  1989

  417

  11990

  146

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Spongiform Encephalopathy (Cats)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the number of cats awaiting diagnostic tests for spongiform encephalopathy at Bristol university.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 5 June 1990.

  Bees
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has held concerning European and national control of diseases affecting bees.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC Commission has recently issued proposals for EC controls on bee health to replace national measures after 1992. The Department is in close touch with United Kingdom beekeeping associations and other interested organisations on these proposals. Our aim in the forthcoming negotiations will be to obtain the best safeguards possible to protect United Kingdom bee health.

  Rabies
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning the control of rabies after the completion of the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Maclean
  This year the Department has received 31 letters concerning rabies controls for the channel tunnel. The inquiries have been assured that planned control measures will ensure that the channel tunnel presents no greater rabies risk than other forms of cross-channel transport.

  Topsoil
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of topsoil are being lost per acre due to overcultivation, improper irrigation, ploughed grassland, and deforestation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not available.

  I am, however, concerned that good agricultural practices are followed to contain soil losses through erosion on susceptible land. There has been considerable research, much of it funded by this Department, and Agricultural Development and Advisory Service staff and their counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland are well equipped to provide advice on the means of minimising soil losses.

  Pet Food
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure those pet food manufacturers not represented by the Pet Food Manufacturers Association do not include those offals specified in the Bovine Offals Order in their pet food products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a commercial matter. There is no scientific justification for not using the specified bovine offals in pet food.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the disposal of carcases from mink farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that most are disposed of on licensed toxic waste tips.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will send to Manchester city council and Trafford council the same information given by Her Majesty's Government to Westminister city council in relation to BSE.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 17 May.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the likely total number of cattle which have consumed scrapie-infected feed and which are still alive.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will update the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) on 1 May,Official Report, column 465, concerning the youngest confirmed case found of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a calf.

  Mr. Maclean
  The youngest confirmed case remains the 22-month-old cow.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of cattle slaughtered because of bovine spongiform encephalopathy by their specific breeds.

  Mr. Maclean
  The total number of confirmed cases in each breed up to 23 May is as follows:

  Breed

  Number

  Aberdeen Angus

  1

  Aberdeen Angus ×

  17

  Aberdeen Angus × Friesian

  25

  Ayr × Charolais

  1

  Ayrshire

  182

  Ayrshire ×

  12

  Ayrshire × Shorthorn

  1

  Blonde d'Aquitaine

  1

  Blue Grey

  0

  British White × Aberdeen Angus

  1

  Brown Swiss

  4

  Charolais

  17

  Charolais ×

  7

  Devon

  1

  Devon × Friesian

  3

  Friesian

  10,747

  Friesian × Ayrshire

  3

  Friesian × Galloway

  1

  Friesian × Guernsey

  1

  Friesian × Holstein

  455

  Friesian × Red Poll

  1

  Friesian × South Devon

  0

  Galloway ×

  3

  Gelbvieh

  1

  Guernsey

  146

  660

  Breed

  Number

  Guernsey ×

  5

  Guernsey × Murray Gray

  1

  Hereford

  39

  Hereford ×

  110

  Hereford × Ayrshire

  0

  Hereford × Friesian

  173

  Hereford × Simmental

  2

  Holstein

  262

  Jersey

  115

  Jersey × Charolais

  1

  Jersey × Friesian

  7

  Limousin

  13

  Limousin ×

  3

  Limousin × Friesian

  20

  Longhorn

  1

  Marchigiana

  1

  Merse Rhine Issel

  1

  Merse Rhine Issel ×

  1

  North Devon

  0

  North Devon × Friesian

  2

  Red Friesian

  12

  Red Poll

  3

  Shorthorn

  24

  Shorthorn ×

  7

  Shorthorn × Friesian

  1

  Shorthorn × Highland

  0

  Shorthorn × Lincoln Red

  0

  Shorthorn × Red Friesian

  1

  Shorthorn × Welsh Black

  0

  Simmental

  18

  Simmental × Angus

  1

  Simmental × Friesian

  15

  South Devon

  7

  South Devon × Limousin

  0

  Sussex

  2

  Sussex ×

  1

  Sussex × Friesian

  2

  Unknown

  1,361

  Welsh Black

  5

  Welsh Black × Hereford

  1

  Total

  13,849

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish in the Official Report the names of the members of his Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes; and whether he has required any of them to give an undertaking about secrecy in respect of the Committee's work.

  Mr. Maclean
  A listing of the current membership of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes is set out in the table. Members are requested to observe the confidential nature of the commercial information put before them. However, they are not asked to give a specific undertaking on secrecy.

  Membership of the advisory committee on novel foods and processes

  Chairman

  Professor Derek C. Burke, BSc, PhD, HonLLD. Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia.

  Members

  Professor G. E. Adams, BSc, PhD, DSc. Director of Medical Research Council Radiobiology Unit, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire.

  Professor T. Atkinson, BSc, PhD. Deputy Director of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, Microbial Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire.

  Dr. A. C. Baird-Parker, OBE, BSc, PhD. Head of the Microbiology Division, Unilever Research.
  661
  Professor W. P. T. James, MA, MD, DSc, FRCP, FRCP (Edin), FRSE. Director of the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen.

  Professor B. E. Moseley, BSc, PhD. Head of Reading Laboratory, Agricultural and Food Research Council, Institute of Food Research, Reading, Berkshire.

  Professor D. J. Naismith, BSc, PhD. Head of the Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, King's College, University of London.

  Professor P. Richmond, BSc, PhD, DSc, CPhys FInstP. Head of Norwich Laboratory, Agricultural and Food Research Council, Institute of Food Research, Norwich.

  Dr. P. J. Rodgers, MA, DPhil. Research and Regulatory Affairs Manager at ICI Biological Products.

  Professor J. E. Smith, DSc, FIBiol, FRSE. Head of the Applied Microbiology Division, Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, University of Strathclyde.

  Dr. J. W. G. Smith, MD, FRCP, FRCPath, FFCM, FIBiol, DipBact. Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service, London.

  Professor D. A. T. Southgate, BSc, PhD. Head of the Nutrition Division of Norwich Laboratory, Agricultural and Food Research Council, Institute of Food Research, Norwich.

  Dr. A. J. Swallow, PhD, DSc, ScD, CChem, FRSC. Head of the Biophysical Chemistry Department, Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, Christie Hospital and Holt Radium Institute, Manchester.

  Professor P. Turner, MD, BSc, FRCP. Professor of Clinical Pharmacology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College, University of London.

  Professor R. Walker, BSc, PhD. Professor of Food Science, University of Surrey.

  Bass
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to proceed with plans to designate nursery areas for the protection of juvenile bass stocks; and if he will make a statment.

  Mr. Curry
  [pursuant to his reply, of 19 April 1990, c. 980]:Regulations establishing 34 nursery areas in the coastal waters of England and Wales and prohibiting fishing for bass from vessels for all parts of the year were laid before Parliament today. The Bass (Specified Sea Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1990, SI 1990 No. 1156, will take effect from 27 June this year.

  The nursery areas are those announced on 19 April with one modification so as to exclude a portion of the eastern areas of Poole harbour. The regulations complete the

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  British Coal deep mines

  Licensed coal mines

  Opencast coal quarries

  British Coal deep mines

  Licensed coal mines

  Opencast coal quarries

  British Coal deep mines

  Licensed coal mines

  Opencast coal mines

  11984–85

  17

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  —

  1985–86

  22

  —

  2

  3

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  1986–87

  11

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  3

  —

  1

  1987–88

  8

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1988–89

  14

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  —

  —

  1Covering a 15 month period January 1984 to March 1985.

  It is not possible to separate major injuries for England, Scotland and Wales without incurring disproportionate cost. National figures are as follows:

  British Coal deep mines

  Licensed coal mines

  Opencast coal quarries

  11984–85

  365

  13

  19

  1985–86

  715

  17

  29

  21986–87

  952

  30

  49

  1987–88

  729

  27

  48

  1988–89

  685

  25

  45

  662
  package of measures that the Fisheries Departments a re adopting for the long-term conservation and management of the bass fishery. The other parts of the package, an increase in the minimum landing size from 32 to 36 cm and the introduction of mesh size controls for gill and similar nets, came into operation in January.

  An advisory leaflet, "Bass: Nursery Areas and Other Conservation Measures", will be issued by the Department and the Welsh Office within the next fortnight. Copies will be sent to fishermen's organisations, sea anglers' associations, sea fisheries committees and the National Rivers Authority and will also be available on request from this Department and the Welsh Office.

EMPLOYMENT

  Low Pay
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any proposals to improve the financial circumstances of low-paid workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The best way to help the lower paid is through continuing economic and employment growth and greater prosperity for all.

  Mines
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many(a) fatal accidents and (b) major accidents there were in (i) British Coal deep mines, (ii) licensed private deep coal mines, (iii) British Coal opencast mines and (iv) licensed private opencast coal mines in (1) England, (2) Scotland and (3) Wales in each of the last five years;

  (2) what was the number of (a) fatal injuries and (b) major injuries in (i) British Coal deep mines, (ii) licensed private deep coal mines, (iii) British Coal opencast mines and (iv) licensed private opencast mines in (1) England, (2) Scotland and (3) Wales in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to determine the number of accidents that resulted in(a) fatal injuries or (b) major injuries without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The numbers of fatal injuries at the premises listed are:

  1Covering a 15 month period January 1984 to March 1985.

  2The introduction of the RIDDOR Regulations on 1 April 1986 widened the coverage of the "serious" injury category. Major injury figures from 1986–87 are therefore not directly comparable with those from earlier years.

  Adjudication Officers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of unemployed claimants in Great Britain, each region, London and each
  663
  London employment service area who have been referred to an adjudication officer on grounds of voluntary unemployment, for each month since 9 October 1989, categorised according to each reason for disqualification; and how many in each case have (i) been disqualified; (ii) not been disqualified and (iii) are awaiting adjudication.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for the administration of unemployment benefit, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the employment service's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will update the information on decisions by adjudication officers he gave in the Official Report, 25 October 1989, columns 501–2, for each month since 9 October 1989, and including information on the number of referrals to adjudication officers;

  (2) what information he has on the average time between the submission of cases to adjudication officers on (i) actively seeking work, (ii) refusal of employment and (iii) availability, and on adjudication decision, in London and its employment service areas, and throughout Great Britain; and if he will make a statement on adjudication officer staffing levels.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for providing statistical information on claims for unemployment benefit, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the employment service's executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list his Department's area adjudication sections in London and the number and physical location of adjudication officers; and if he will make a statement on their relocation, indicating where they will be located in the future and the methods that will be used to ensure that adjudication officers have the necessary local labour market knowledge required to adjudicate on questions of availability and actively seeking work.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for the location of adjudication officers, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the employment service's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the percentage of (i) refusal of employment, (ii) actively seeking work, (iii) availability and (iv) restricted availability questions decided within four weeks of referral to an adjudication officer for each employment service area, for the last four quarters.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for collating statistics on claims for unemployment benefit, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the employment service's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the information collected on the 5 per cent. sample of adjudication officers' cases referred to in his answer of 8 January,Official Report, column 490,
  664
  with regard to the average time between receipt of a referral and an adjudication decision on (a) refusal of employment and (b) actively seeking work.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for collecting statistics on claims for unemployment benefit, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the employment service's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Member.

  Employment Service Office Managers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the names, addresses and telephone numbers of each employment service area office manager.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for the network of local and area offices, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the employment service's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Member.

  Restart
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many restart interviews were conducted, and how many people were(a) referred to each menu option at the restart interview, (b) what numbers actually took up their referral, (c) what numbers were referred to the unemployment benefit service for (i) failure to attend the restart interview, (ii) refusal of employment, (iii) actively seeking work, (iv) non-availability and (v) restricted availability, for the quarters ended September 1989, December 1989, and March 1990; and in each case what number had their benefit suspended or withdrawn; and if he is able to give a regional breakdown of the figures.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service, which is responsible for the restart programme, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the employment service's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Member.

  Mines and Quarries Inspectors
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspectors from Her Majesty's mines and quarries inspectorate were based in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is shown in the table. Figures relate to the locations of district or area offices; some mines inspectorate district offices cover areas which extend over territorial boundaries and mines and quarries inspectors may work in more than one district or area.

  Number of inspectors in HSE's Mines and Quarries Inspectorates1 based in:

  England2

  Scotland

  Wales

  Total

  (1 April)

  1985

  70

  9

  13

  92

  1986

  65

  7

  10

  82

  1987

  66

  7

  11

  84

  1988

  56

  5

  11

  72

  665

  England2

  Scotland

  Wales

  Total

  1989

  51

  6

  10

  67

  1990

  47

  32

  9

  58

  1 On 1 October 1989, the quarries inspectorate transferred to HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorate division.

  2 The totals for England include inspectors based in the inspectorates' headquarters.

  3 The mines inspectorate's Scottish and north eastern district office moved from Edinburgh to Gosforth in September 1989.

  Toxic Chemicals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the work of the working group on the assessment of toxic chemicals, in so far as it affects the health and safety of industrial work forces.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The working group on the assessment of toxic chemicals undetakes scientific assessments of the toxicological, epidemiological, and other data relating to hazardous substances to which persons may be exposed in workplaces. It makes recommendations to the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances, which advises the Health and Safety Commission, on the assignment of occupational exposure limits for such substances. These limits are for use in determining the adequacy of the control of exposure under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988.

  Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to expand his Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances by inviting professional environmentalists to become members.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. This is an advisory committee of the Health and Safety Commission and its terms of reference and membership are matters for the commission to consider.

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Labour and Social Affairs Council meeting held in Brussels on Tuesday 29 May.

  Mr. Howard
  The meeting was very constructive. The main business was the adoption of a resolution put forward by the Irish Presidency on action to assist the long-term unemployed.

  The council also adopted a resolution on the fight against racism and xenophobia; and a proposal for an action programme on continuing training. I expressed my support for the objectives of this decision; but made clear our objections to the inclusion of the social charter in the recital.

  There was a discussion of how we should amend existing regulations governing the freedom of movement for workers within the Community; and of a proposal for a new regulation on eligibility of migrant workers and their families to non-contributory benefits. It was agreed both issues needed further consideration.

  The council also adopted a resolution on the protection of the dignity of women and men at work, which is concerned with protection against sexual harassment; the third joint programme to encourage the exchange of young workers within the Community; and two directives on minimum health and safety requirements for workers in these areas: handling heavy loads where there is a risk of back injury for workers; and for work with display screen equipment. A common position was reached on a third directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to biological agents at work.

  In informal discussion, we considered how we might support the efforts of Poland and Hungary to move to a free market economy. Their Ministers for Employment had addressed Community Employment Ministers at an informal meeting on 28 May.

  Finally, Commisssioner Papandreou gave a first informal report on member states' implementation of measures already agreed in the social area. This was in response to my request for regular reports on implementation; and I have asked her to let member states have her report in writing.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Lord Cavendish of Furness
Richard Hugh Cavendish, Esquire, having been created Baron Cavendish of Furness, of Cartmel in the County of Cumbria, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Mowbray and Stourton and the Lord Denman.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham
Richard Gordon Holme, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Holme of Cheltenham, of Cheltenham in the County of Gloucestershire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Scarman and the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.

Exchange Rate Mechanism
2.57 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of recent ministerial speeches, the United Kingdom will join the exchange rate mechanism within the next 12 months.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the position of Her Majesty's Government remains unchanged. The United Kingdom will join the exchange rate mechanism when the Madrid conditions have been met.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that during the second and third weeks of May speeches made by the Prime Minister at the Scottish Conservative Party conference and subsequently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were reported by newspapers such as the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal and The Sunday Times as representing a major shift in British attitude towards early membership of the ERM? Is he further aware that as a result of those speeches and of those reports there was a substantial uplift in stock market values? In those circumstances does he not consider it right that this House should be taken a little more into the Government's confidence?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord reads into those articles in the press what he wishes to read. My replies on this subject yesterday and today make the Government's position absolutely clear.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House at what level of inflation he
1368
considers it would be apposite for the Government to enter the ERM?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before I answer that question I am sure the whole House would like to join me in wishing my noble friend a very, very happy birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lord, the key point regarding ERM entry is not a reduction of the United Kingdom inflation rate in itself; it is that our inflation rate should be on a downward trend and a little closer to that of our European partners on a comparable basis.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the attempt by Mr. Lawson to enter the ERM by the back door has resulted in the disaster of record high interest rates and a record balance of payments problem, would there be any change and would there be any improvement if the Government now sought to enter the ERM through the front door?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note that the noble Lord continues to adopt a different view from noble Lords on his Front Bench. I would not draw the same conclusion from the first part of the noble Lord's question as he did; therefore he asks a purely hypothetical question.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend urge his colleagues in the Government to resist the elbow jogging tactics of those who seem obsessed with moving to European federation at almost any cost? When joining the ERM is clearly in the best interests of the United Kingdom as well as of Europe, it may be considered, but it would not serve British interests to do so before that time. The Government have no mandate either from the 1979 election or from any subsequent election to do anything less than that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend's first question is separate from the Question on the Order Paper. With regard to his second question, my noble friend is absolutely right. We shall join the ERM when it is right for the United Kingdom to do so.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, are not the Government expecting inflation now to turn down? The Minister said that we shall join when inflation is on the way down. Has not the time come for that, or do the Government expect it still to go up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question of inflation is another matter. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question on that subject I shall be pleased to answer it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in his first Answer he was slightly inaccurate in saying that the position of the Government had not changed? Is he aware that the position of the Government is rapidly deteriorating

1369
and has deteriorated since that time? Will he give some assurance that small and medium-sized businesses, which are at the moment paying between 17 per cent. and 18 per cent. for bank facilities, will speedily be relieved and that we shall not enter the exchange rate monetary system until the matter has been redressed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I entirely disagree with the noble Lord's assertion that the Government's position has deteriorated; I think that the position of the Government is continuing to improve healthily. Regarding his second point, as the noble Lord will know, we are already members of the EMS. We are talking about whether we should become members of the ERM. That decision will be taken. The principles have been agreed, the terms have been set out and the decision will be taken when it is right for the UK to do so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what he has just said completely contradicts what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said 10 days ago when he had the courage to state that we were in for a tough time: unemployment may rise and even inflation may rise a little more? Who are we to believe—the noble Earl or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no contradiction between what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said and what I have said today. The noble Lord has sought to widen the Question to such matters as unemployment.

The Recruitment Industry
3.4 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering any national or EC legislation which would directly affect the search, selection and recruitment industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the current Employment Bill will affect the recruitment industry. No other national legislation and no EC proposals directly relevant to the recruitment industry are under consideration by the Government at present.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister a further question. In so doing I should declare an interest as I am president of the Association of Search and Selection Consultants. Can he say who Her Majesty's Government have consulted in the past upon such matters and who they intend to consult in the future?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we consult a variety of organisations involved in the search, selection and recruitment industry. We shall continue to do so when it is required.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the Government give priority to the considerations raised in the noble Lord's Question, will the Minister please give some attention to the whole question of training in this country? Can he confirm that he has read the article that appears in today's edition of the Guardian which states that only 38 per cent. of the British labour force are properly trained as against 80 per cent. in France and that we are at the bottom of the training league?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure whether that issue has anything to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the percentage of workers trained under the Labour Government was even worse than the percentage trained under the Conservative Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this Question is about employment agencies; it has nothing to do with training. That is another question, which I am keen to answer but I cannot do so at this moment.

NHS: Funding from Increased Taxation
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether public opinion would support an increase in personal taxation in order to improve the facilities of the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government's successful economic policies, including our reform of the tax system, have enabled us to increase spending on the National Health Service by 44 per cent. in real terms since 1978-79, leading to the provision of more and better services generally. As an example, we are proud of our success in reducing the number of infant deaths. Infant mortality rates, a key indication of the nation's health, are currently lower than in any previous year.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, does she realise that the ever-rising costs of new technologies, equipment and so on mean that perhaps we should think about providing an 8 per cent. increase in real terms every year? Does she agree that, if the funds are not available directly, it would be as well to find out in this democracy whether the public would be prepared to have increased taxes of some form in order to keep the National Health Service running smoothly?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are fully aware of increasing expectations in terms of the National Health Service and, indeed, the increased costs which new technology brings to it. Our aim is to achieve the best possible balance between spending for general basic services, which historically the

1371
National Health Service was created to provide, and hi-tech treatments. Our system of supra-regional services has played an important part in this process.
As I have said, we have ensured that the National Health Service has received a steady increase in real resources over the past 10 years. This, coupled with the measures that we have taken to improve efficiency and obtaining good value for money, has meant that the service has been able to keep pace with the demands of demography and medical advance. We intend that that process should continue.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, was it not our experience under Labour Governments that high and increasing taxation diminished the national product and therefore diminished the amount of wealth available for all these good purposes?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that comment. As the past 11 years have shown, cutting tax rates is not incompatible with spending more on the National Health Service. The Government's economic policies have led to growth, enabling more money to be spent to improve services. While the standard rate of income tax has fallen from 33 per cent. to 25 per cent., real national health spending has, as I said, grown by 44 per cent. It has increased both as a proportion of GDP and of public expenditure.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister's reply to the main Question referred to the decrease in the infant mortality rate. However, is she aware that in the central area of Manchester and also in other cities the number of deaths of children at birth and below the age of one year is still more than twice the national average, with very little sign of improvement? When will the Government do something about the situation by providing extra resources in this areas for that purpose?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's particular pleading in this matter. In general, we are continuing the good trend by the formation of a specialist group to investigate still births and infant deaths; by a critical review of research into cot deaths by the Medical Research Council; and by taking action to improve the capacity of the NHS to undertake post-mortems following infant deaths. We hope that the picture will continue to improve throughout the country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if there is the vast volume of people eager for higher personal taxation, as postulated in the original Question, I can give them a nice list of reputable medical charities which they can support to great public advantage by putting their hands into their pockets?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his suggestion. I should like to confirm once again that it is the Government's low tax policies which have led to economic growth thus enabling the provision of better services.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her answer is a trifle bizarre? Is she aware that the ratio of taxation to incomes has been higher throughout the Government's period of office than it ever was under the previous Labour Government? If it is true—it is in terms of the Government's published figures—that more seems to be spent on health at present than 10 years ago, how does she account for the acute crisis and lack of beds in all the major London teaching hospitals which, apart from anything else, place at risk the lives of Members of your Lordships' House every day of the week?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the Question refers to personal taxation. I also point out that after social security health is the second biggest item in the Government's spending programme. The figures prove that there is a greater throughput in terms of hospital treatment; so while people may not be spending nights in beds, they are being treated in hospitals. There are more doctors and nurses, and more patients being treated, than ever before.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the original Question referred to public opinion as to where the burden should be borne? If increased expenditure on the NHS is required—everyone seems to believe that that is true—have not public opinion polls over the past three years indicated a preference that that expenditure should be borne by general taxation? Will she inform her noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that, in addition to income tax, taxation includes value added tax which was doubled by the Government?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we would be wise to be wary of polls showing that people are happy to pay more tax. In any case, as I have already said, the Government are spending more and improving services. Due to our successful economic policies, the GDP has increased and the NHS share of the GDP has increased.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, to what extent is the problem one of a lack of funding or, alternatively, a lack of proper budgeting by each hospital or board so that they run out of money too early in the year? Secondly, will my noble friend confirm that the amount of money saved each year by the paying off of the national debt is equivalent to running about 170 hospitals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall have to check on the last point raised by my noble friend. I have already pointed out that there is no question of there being a lack of funds. There has been increased funding. What is important is to achieve the proper management of that funding. All the measures that the Government have taken, and are taking, are intended to create a more efficient service and to improve the quality of clinical care and the delivery of care.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not a fact that however much one puts into the NHS it is never

1373
enough because the demands will always be there? With the new technology and all that flows from it, the service will get bigger and bigger and brighter and brighter, and more money will be spent on it by government. So what are we all talking about?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Lord is right as he so often is. We hope that demand will always outstrip what we can do.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the Minister's undertaking to investigate the matter, if she finds that it is possible to fund 100 and something hospitals by not reducing the national debt, perhaps the Government might consider funding some new hospitals. Would that not be a much better idea?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are funding, and have funded, new hospitals.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, while my noble friend is carrying out that investigation she might discover how many hospitals could be built out of the interest being saved from not having to fund the national debt.
Lord Molloy: My Lord, is the Minister aware that the majority of our royal colleges probably know more about the NHS than any of us; that many price increases have been met to a degree by the Government but that other aspects of the NHS are being neglected; that schemes have been introduced which are deleterious to the NHS; and that we are arriving at the worst possible world? The NHS is costing us more, and it is not nearly as efficient as it was 10 years ago.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the increased costs and demands of the NHS. Our reforms are intended to improve that service, to make it more efficient and to improve its quality.

Electoral Rights: Overseas Residents
3.16 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether children who emigrated to Canada with their parents and have now reached the age of 18 years are eligible to vote in United Kingdom elections.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, British citizens aged 18 or over who left the United Kingdom before they were old enough to register as electors are now able to do so and to vote at parliamentary and European parliamentary elections here provided that they left less than 20 years ago. A parent or guardian must have been included on the electoral register here at or about the time the young person went abroad.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. What steps are being taken by the Government to inform those people and the
1374
many thousands of others in similar circumstances in other countries of their new status? How will they be registered? How will their votes be cast? What will be the estimated cost of the whole exercise?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, to answer some of the noble Lord's questions, a publicity campaign is being waged with a total budget of £760,000, of which some £45,000 will be spent in Canada. The noble Lord asked how overseas electors will register. They can fill in and return an application form to the electoral registration officer for the area where they were last registered or where their parents or guardian were last registered. The forms and explanatory leaflets are available from diplomatic and consular posts. They should be completed by 10th October in any year. Overseas electors will vote in the constituency in which they were last registered or where their parents or guardians were last registered. They would vote by proxy.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, will the noble Viscount explain how young people who were below the age of 18 when they left this country could have been on an electoral register? Secondly, has he an estimate of how many young people are involved? For how many years can they go on voting? Can they continue voting in this country for the rest of their lives?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I sought to make it clear that young people who had emigrated with their parents or guardians would register where their parents or guardians had been registered. I believe that I explained that the time limit was 20 years. It is not without limit of time.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, how many are involved?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the estimate is that there are some 2 million to 3 million overseas electors. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Baroness an estimate of the number of young people included in that figure.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a brief word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. The number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to apply as formal time limit, but I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it would conform with the spirit of these debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes limit as recommended by the Procedure Committee.

Hasmonean High School Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Debate, 13th June
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Williams of Elvel set down for 13th June shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2i hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Social Security Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 16,

Schedule 1,

Clause 17,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 18 and 19,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 20 to 22,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 23 to 26,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 27 and 28,

Schedule 6.

— (Lord Henley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Political and Monetary Union
3.21 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to call attention to the case for Her Majesty's Government taking an active role in seeking to define a more precise shape for future European political and monetary union; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a number of debates over the past two years I have sought to indict the Government for their persistent semi-detachment and the consequent ineffectiveness of their European posture. Today I thought I should try a somewhat different approach for three reasons: first, to try to avoid the boredom of repetition; secondly, because there are some fairly faint signs of an improvement in the Government's attitude and therefore encouragement may be in order; and thirdly, because it is desirable to try to understand why British governments so persistently and, I believe, damagingly march out of step with Europe, rather than merely abuse or mock them for doing so.
The persistence of this misjudgment, as I see it, has been remarkable and bipartisan. It was a Labour Government of which I was a fervid supporter at the time that kept us out of the Coal and Steel Community. I voted—as I now see, wrongly—in the crucial 1950 Division, so I claim no early impeccability of judgment and wisdom. It was said at the time that the Durham miners would not stand for it. That was rather dangerous nonsense. It is the same as Mrs. Thatcher last summer over-estimating the appeal of populist nationalism in her approach to the European Parliament elections of 1989.
In my view, the trouble in our relations with Europe has been much less with the British public than with the British leaders. When a lead was given, as at the time of the 1975 referendum, the public responded perfectly well. However, British leaders with few exceptions have steadily got it wrong. The Attlee Government kept us out of the Coal and Steel Community; the Eden Government kept us out of the Economic Community. And the first years of the Macmillan Government landed us with the false alternative of EFTA which became a predictable embarrassment within a year.
Jumping forward 20 years, the Government of my noble friend Lord Gallaghan of Cardiff kept us out of initial full membership of the European monetary system in contrast with every one of the other nine members of which the Community was then composed. The explanation for this remarkable consistency lies more in persistent misunderstanding than in a lack of British goodwill towards the Community. The result, I believe, is equally unfortunate.
In what does the misunderstanding lie? There are three aspects. First, there is exaggerated and unnecessary fear of a formal and flattening federalism that would make Europe the analogue of the United States, and Britain merely the equivalent of a Pennsylvania or an Illinois within it. I do not believe for one moment that that will happen; nor that it needs the war dances of British nationalists from Mr. Tebbit to Mr. Benn to prevent it. It will not happen because Europeans in Europe will always be very different from the Europeans who crossed the Atlantic and made the United States of America. They have not been through the melting pot. They have not turned their backs on their own countries.
It will not happen because none of the leaders of Europe—not President Mitterrand, nor Chancellor Kohl, nor Senor Gonzalez—has any intention of ceasing to be a Frenchman a German or a Spaniard. They have no more intention of doing that than the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has of ceasing to be an Englishman.
The leaders want to carry on an increasing number of important activities together, certainly, with some element of federalism in the methods. But that is different from changing what I call the psychological polity. I do not believe that, in the year 2000 or in the following decades, when a Frenchman in Tokyo is asked what he is, he will say, "I'm a European" in the way that a New Yorker or even a Texan would say, "I'm an American" in similar circumstances. I do not believe that that will change much over subsequent decades. However by harbouring rather

1377
phantasmagoric fears, we merely reduce our influence on further developments.
Secondly, in the country we have always found it difficult to grasp the central paradox that although the European Community, has largely used economic means, it is and always has been about a political end: the security of the Continent and the regaining so far as possible of the influence in the world that we all in Europe so wantonly threw away in two European civil wars.
The Government have sometimes sounded as though Europe ought to be almost exclusively about moving packages freely across frontiers and with any wider political purposes a dangerous excrescence. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, when on the Front Bench opposite, was a particularly lucid exponent of that point of view. It sounds simple and straightforward, but it is the most terrible snare. First, it is self-defeating, for without the lubricant of a little idealism and without the sense of direction given by a political purpose, we would never get 12 countries to make the give-and-take concessions on a variety of national interests without which 1992 could never be a reality.
It is an attitude terribly out of touch with their level and momentum of current events. When, for example, Civic Forum in Czechoslovakia campaigns—as it does—on the basis of a reintegration of that country into Europe, it is not the thought of lorries travelling freely across frontiers that moves it. In the foreseeable competitive state that would be a considerable imposition, a price that could only be paid in order to achieve greater and wider benefits. It is very desirable that packages should cross frontiers freely. However, Europe is about much more than that. If we try to tell the Community to stick to a narrow trade line we shall be Philistine, isolated and ineffective. Yet we need not be any of those three things.
That leads me to what in my view is the third misunderstanding. The Continental intellectual tradition is undoubtedly to think more in terms of general declarations of intent and direction than our own, which is more empirical and more a matter of nudging one's way forward, determining each step only after the previous one has been taken. There is something to be said both for and against both those approaches. The test of European statesmanship, and the only way to be an effective European leader, is to be able to reconcile them.
There is sometimes a logical gap between the end and the means of ringing European declarations. The words used sometimes have a sharper meaning for British ears than for the Continental drafters. The sensible reaction is not to denounce the declarations of aim as either meaningless humbug or, more contradictorily, as imprisoning and unacceptable commitments, but to profit from the vagueness if it be there and make oneself central to the enterprise and play a major role in shaping the highly important modalities.
To do that, however, one has to want the enterprise to succeed and make other people think that one wants the enterprise to succeed. There is certainly room for dispute about the route. I do not necessarily
1378
believe that every word of the Delors plan is perfect. One would have to be a very charitable person to believe that every word of one's successor in any job was perfect and engraved on tablets of stone and could not possibly be allowed to go cheap. There is room for a little diversion. Chesterton wrote of:
"The night we went to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head". If one is to be anywhere near the driving seat on such an expedition one has to look as though one wants to get to Birmingham at the end of the day and not merely end up bogged down in Eastbourne.
In my view that was the trouble with our EMU paper. It came out of the most unpromising remit which was given to the Treasury after last year's Madrid European summit to produce an alternative to the Delors route to monetary union which had as little as possible to do with either union or a common money. It set a formidable intellectual task even for the most distinguished brains in the Treasury. As a result we got the not very exciting proposal for alternative currencies, which failed to engage either of the major practical disadvantages of the existing position. Those are, first, uncertainty as to what one will receive in one's own currency when a trade deal has been carried out and, secondly, the enormous exchange rate costs involved trying to operate a single integrated market with 11 different currencies. As a result the British paper has been received with all the enthusiasm of a lead balloon.
To do better in the future on monetary union and on political unity we must be prepared to show much more that we really want to get to Birmingham, or at least fairly near to it, to Rugby let us say.
Surely in our political approach we should give up some of our apparently deep-seated anti-European Parliament prejudice. There is nothing which has disappointed our European partners more than the fact that we have contributed so little to the European Parliament. They thought that with our great parliamentary tradition we would have a very special contribution to make. They have found that we are mostly concerned with finding out what it is doing and telling it to stop. It is not possible to envisage any significant advance which keeps us remotely in step with the leaders of Europe unless there are substantial powers for the Parliament. Otherwise, to use the catchphrase, the democratic deficit will grow unacceptably.
Nor, I hope, will we be tempted to make the tumultuous events in Eastern Europe an excuse for delay. The majority of the other 11 members of the Community do not want that. Nor do the emergent Eastern European countries themselves, to which the Community can be and is to some extent a beacon that gives them some sense of direction. It is a very fragile world in which we now live as regards Eastern Europe and Russia itself.
I do not know Eastern Europe very well When I was President of the Commission it was terra incognita; I did not go there. They did not recognise us and we did not recognise them. However, in the past few weeks I have been once to Bucharest and once to Czechoslovakia. One is bound to be struck by the tremendous sense of hope but also the fragility of the position when beyond there are such

1379
extraordinary shadows over the future of the Soviet Union.
I was recently engaged in a television discussion in America to celebrate the anniversary of a university with Henry Kissinger and Fyodor Burlatzky, who is a well known Soviet spokesman. Fyodor Burlatzky riveted us all when, asked what he thought was the future of the Soviet Union as a political entity, he said that it will become an alliance. After consultation with his interpreter he said, "What I mean is something rather like the Commonwealth". I asked him whether he really meant the British Commonwealth, which is one of the loosest organisations in the world. He said "Yes, that's right". If there is a possibility of the Soviet Union dissolving its sinews to the extent of moving even halfway to becoming a commonwealth, and given the extremely fragile position throughout the Eastern European countries, it is a most extraordinary time of opportunity. It is also a time of immense dangers.
The German question also has to be faced. I believe that many fears about Germany are exaggerated. The salient fact of the past 40 years has been that Germany has not exercised the political muscle which its economic strength entitles it to use. That has been the imbalance in the European Community. Both France and ourselves, in our differing ways, have tried to exercise a political power which our economies could not sustain. Germany, by contrast, has been pushing political power away over those four decades. The position may necessarily change, but it would have to be a very great change before Germany could be accused of throwing its weight about. Nonetheless, there are question marks over the future of that pivotal country in the centre of Europe, which now again, for the first time for many years, means the centre of the world.
The old world of only a few years ago is changing with remarkable speed. There seemed to be an unattractive and oppressive but considerable solidity in the whole of the eastern half of the Continent. In the Cold War situation we could compensate to some extent for our weakness in the European Community by being President Reagan's favourite cis-Atlantic ally. That period has already slipped far behind us. Unless the Government can play a more effective hand in Europe from the intergovernmental conference at the end of this year onwards, I fear that Britain will be playing a very weak hand in a world which is in a greater state of flux than anything we have known for half a century. I beg to move for Papers.
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for tabling today's debate on European political and monetary union. Few members of the House bring to this important subject the wealth of direct experience of the European Community and life-long commitment to its development which marked the noble Lord's speech at the beginning of the debate.
1380
I welcome today's debate for three particular reasons. I welcome it, first, because of its timeliness and because of the manifest importance of the subjects that it raises. As we stand at a crossroads in European history, the European Community is central to our vision of our continent's future stability and prosperity. A community like ours cannot remain static. It must move forward. At the end of this year we are already committed to beginning an inter-governmental conference on the question of economic and monetary union. The European Council in Dublin in less than three weeks' time will decide whether to convene a parallel conference on the subject of political union. Those discussions will shape the Community for the years ahead.
Secondly, I welcome the debate because the issues that it raises touch directly the interests of this House and this Parliament. The United Kingdom wants a strong Community and strong Community law, but we also want to maintain our national traditions and distinctive way of life. By that I do not mean just our cultural and social traditions—Shakespeare, cricket or pints of beer. I mean also our political traditions and the maintenance of strong political traditions requires them to be based on the continuing exercise of real responsibility. The balance between national governments and parliaments and central European institutions is of vital interest to your Lordships. The Government are eager to hear and consider carefully your views in preparation for the debates on political and monetary union on which the Community is now embarked.
Thirdly, I welcome the debate because, although you might not immediately believe it having just heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the Government can agree unequivocally with every single word in his Motion. I know that he did not intend it that way, but his Motion describes with uncanny precision the policy that the Government have adopted on those important issues.
Let me begin with the subject of political union or, as some of our Community colleagues call it, the political dimension of the Community. We are of course committed to those solemn and famous words at the beginning of the Treaty of Rome:
"to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
The Single European Act, which was negotiated in 1985 and came into force less than three years ago, reaffirmed the commitment
"to transform relations as a whole among [member] states into a European union"
and introduced a series of major institutional changes which, together with the accession of Spain and Portugal, have invigorated the Community in recent years.
The changes brought in by the Single European Act included a timetable for completion of the internal market; the inclusion in the treaties of areas of activity such as research and the environment; a new co-operation procedure involving the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament; and the formalisation, on a treaty basis, of European political co-operation.

1381
We believe that the Community institutions have responded well to those significant changes. The 1992 programme in particular has transformed the Community and given it the forward-looking, open and liberal credentials which have acted as a pole of attraction for the countries of Eastern Europe and consolidated the Community's authority and credibility in its relations with major trading partners elsewhere.
I am sure that it is the very confidence which the 1992 programme has given the Community, combined with a feeling on the part of some of our partners that the Community needed to push forward internally in response to events in Central and Eastern Europe, that has stirred the current interest in further institutional change. The special European Council in Dublin on 28th April therefore asked Foreign Ministers to analyse ideas on political union and report back to the European Council at the end of June, with a view to a decision then on the holding of an inter-governmental conference. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear at the April summit and as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has confirmed in a series of speeches in the United Kingdom and other member states, there are three basic strands to British policy on the political dimension.
First, we have made clear that starting new Community discussions on institutional reform should not weaken our resolve to complete successfully the major tasks on which the Community is already embarked in 1990. I have in mind in particular the establishment of new relationships with Eastern Europe; the development of dialogue with the EFTA countries; concluding the GATT Uruguay Round; working out arrangements for the integration into the Community of East Germany; pushing ahead with the 1992 programme itself; and, finally, preparing the conference on economic and monetary union. We have made the point—and I do not think that any of our partners has dissented—that success in those challenges will itself strengthen the Community. Grave damage would be done to our internal coherence and external credibility were we to fail to carry through our commitments in those six vital areas of work.
Secondly, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear at the Dublin summit in April that there was a need to analyse more thoroughly what political union should cover before we proceeded further. That is why the words chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, are so clever. The Government have made clear that Community discussion should first indicate those things which political union does not mean, such as giving up our separate heads of state, our national parliaments, our legal or electoral systems, or our defence arrangements through NATO. Nor should political union mean the emasculation of the Council of Ministers as the Community's main decision-making body. Again, those points are widely accepted elsewhere in the Community.
We have therefore sought to bring political union down from the clouds in which it was shrouded before 28th April. We do not see that simply as the usual British campaign for pragmatism and good
1382
sense, although those qualities should not be undervalued in Community debate, but as necessary in order to reassure public opinion and build consensus about what this debate means. Reassurance is also relevant to the third strand of British policy; namely, that the debate on political union should not be conducted in an introspective vacuum. It should take full account of the wider Europe beyond the Community negotiating table. The institutions that we create today should not be throw-away paper models. They must last. But if they are built to last, they must take into account the fact that the Community is not static, is moving on and must remain open to the other countries of Europe. That means that the Community's institutions of today and tomorrow must take into account the possibility of a larger Community in the Europe of the 21st century.
It is those principles which underlie the series of ideas which the Government have floated in recent weeks on possible institutional change. I shall elaborate more fully on those ideas later in the debate, but let me now pick up the more important strands in our thinking.
First, in keeping with our views on the importance of the diversity of national traditions, we have advocated the need to improve democratic accountability in the Community. There are several ways to do that maintaining or enhancing the accountability of Ministers in the Council to their national parliaments; stronger links between national parliaments and the European Parliament; giving the European Parliament a greater role in examining the way in which the Community's funds are spent and its decisions carried out.
Improving the financial accountability of the Commission to the European Parliament would make a substantial contribution to the Community's efficiency and effectiveness. We have also suggested that, in that regard, greater attention needs to be given to improving implementation and enforcement of agreed EC legislation, perhaps by giving the European Court of Justice and the Commission stronger powers of enforcement.
We also believe that there is scope for improving the Community's effectiveness in the area of political co-operation and foreign policy co-ordination. Finally, we must take a long, hard look at the principle of subsidiarity.
Discussion in the Community—for example among Foreign Ministers at their informal meeting in Ireland last month—has revealed a fair measure of support for the basic principles which the United Kingdom has advocated and interest in the specific positive proposals which we have floated. It would be wrong to conceal the fact that there are a number of other ideas for institutional change in circulation at present which do not appeal to the Government. But we are satisfied that the debate is now basically on the right track, concentrating on how to make the Community institutions work better, and working up practical ideas for achieving that, rather than purporting to create a blueprint for a brave new world of centralised control which none of us wants to enter. The Government are committed to maintaining this open, active and constructive

1383
approach in the continuing debate on political union before and after this month's European Council in Dublin.
On economic and monetary union too the UK has been among the most vigorous participants in the debate. We are of course committed, as are all member states, to move progressively towards economic and monetary union. We all want to achieve much closer economic integration, with higher living standards and more flexible, market-orientated economies. Closer monetary integration offers the prospect of price and currency stability, cheaper financial transactions and the opportunity for all Community citizens and businesses to enjoy free and equal access to financial instruments and services.
The question is how to achieve those objectives. The Delors Report put forward one model, based on centrally determined moves first to locked currencies and then to a single currency and single monetary policy administered by a single, independent European central bank, backed by an enlarged redistributive EC Budget and binding controls on national budget deficits. The Government do not accept that model, which would imply a massive transfer of sovereignty over fiscal and monetary policy away from national parliaments and might well fail to deliver the benefits we all seek. This view has been endorsed in debates both in this House and in another place last November. The Government put forward an alternative, market-based approach in their paper, An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union. That paper has made an important contribution to the debate in Europe.
Our approach is practical; our starting point the importance of the single market. Completion of the single market programme will mean genuinely free movement of people, goods and services throughout the Community. It will over time lead to increasing convergence of the economic performance of member states, and it will lead to greater stability in prices and exchange rates. Creating the single market is therefore central to the first stage of economic and monetary union, which will begin in July.
To complete Stage 1, we must also build on the competitive forces released by the single market; we must reduce state aids for industry; and we must create the freest possible climate for financial transactions across the Community. All Community currencies must also participate in the exchange rate mechanism on the same terms. The Government have confirmed their intention to join as soon as our well-known conditions are met.
As I have already said, heads of government have agreed to hold an inter-governmental conference in December to consider further steps towards economic and monetary union. The UK Government have said that we shall play a full part in that conference, and we have been participating constructively in preparations for it. Moreover, we have been winning converts along the way. There is now considerable agreement about the way in which economic arrangements should develop beyond Stage 1. Our Community partners now agree that
1384
we should build on the arrangements for voluntary co-ordination and surveillance of member states' economic policies which are already in place. They agree with us that there should be no monetary financing of budget deficits and that member states should not bail each other out in times of difficulty. Many member states have come round to our view that there should not be rules limiting the size for national budget deficits, and the Commission has now concluded that they are "economically unjustified".
There is less agreement on the monetary side. The UK has three fundamental concerns about the Delors Report's approach. First, we believe that ultimate control of monetary policy must lie with elected national governments and not with an independent and unaccountable Community central bank. Governments must continue to be accountable to their own electorates for their conduct of monetary affairs.
Secondly, we believe that monetary policy set out by a central Community body would deliver an average inflation performance, not the best. However independent that body, there would be a tendency to compromise. The pressure of national democratic institutions will continue to provide the sharpest incentive for governments to keep prices stable. That is why we believe that, beyond Stage I of EMU, there should continue to be competition between national monetary policies, while the use of the ecu should also be encouraged.
Thirdly, we do not believe, as the Delors Report suggested, that EMU should mean more budgetary support for poorer regions. The Community should not move ahead on the monetary side until all regions are strong enough to take part. A bigger budget, redistributing resources across the Community, would be no substitute for adequate prior convergence of economic performance, not least because history shows that artificial resource allocation run by bureaucrats works much less effectively than natural resource allocation working through markets.
We shall continue to explain our approach and to put forward our own ideas in the coming months as the inter-governmental conference approaches.
I hope that I have succeeded in demonstrating that the Government are indeed taking an active role in seeking to define the Community's future development. But your Lordships should not take my word for it. All that noble Lords need to do is scan the comment columns of the Community's newspapers to see that our constructive approach is well appreciated elsewhere in the country. Our friends in Europe and around the world want us to play an active role because they recognise that we have a distinctive contribution to make to shaping the Europe of the 21st century.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, I wonder whether he will allow me to intervene. In his comments today, in the Government's response to the Foreign Affairs Committee's observations on the operation of the Single European Act and on many other occasions the Government have declined to make any

1385
observations whatsoever about those twin pillars of the Single European Act; namely, social policy and environmental policy. Why is it that the Government omit all reference to those matters in their response?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord has his name down to speak later in the debate and I shall respond at the end. If he wishes to make those points in his speech I shall certainly take them into account. In the meantime I have slightly overrun the time allowed to me so I shall conclude.
We do not intend to miss that opportunity and I shall be listening intently to your Lordships' remarks, which will help the Government to prepare fully and imaginatively for the discussions ahead.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for tabling this important and timely Motion and also for the comprehensive speech in which he set the scene for our debate. The words of his Motion are reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, indicated that the Government agree with it. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asks the Government to be more active in seeking to define a more precise shape for future political and monetary union. However, Parliament, and not only Parliament but the people of this country, want to know much more about the Government's policy on these crucial issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, as he always does, made an agreeable speech, but he has not added greatly to the fund of our knowledge on these matters. We move from Paris to Dublin and on to Rome later this year, giving the impression that on many issues we are making policy as we go along. Of course we know that there are differences of view in the Government and in the Cabinet, but at some stage we are entitled to expect the Government to produce a clear foreign policy which is pursued with consistency and not, as the Economist stated recently, " a government scrambling to adapt to events set in train by others."
I think we all agree that the Rome summit will be the most important Community meeting since the Treaty of Rome was signed, if political union is added to the agenda. The Community itself will be in the melting pot. The treaty will be up for amendment and the issues in this debate will be at the top of the agenda.
The Minister made some general observations on the main topics of interest but we have a duty to press the Government to define more precisely their economic and political objectives so that Britain knows where it stands at this important time. For example, there has been a great deal of argument and uncertainty on the economic side and about when we should join the exchange rate mechanism. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England have said that Britain should be ready to join as soon as the Government can bring inflation under control. Then the rumour has spread that Britain may join rather sooner than expected; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said at Question Time today, the markets have reacted excitedly.
1386
Following Mr. John Major's remarks on 17th May hinting that there would be an early entry into the ERM, noble Lords will recall that markets soared—the sharpest surge in share prices for nearly three years. Mr. Major said:
"Anybody who thinks we are playing with this as a gesture is wrong".
We then hear contrary platitudes from the Treasury Benches in both Houses.
We understand the difficulties, but we also believe that we should negotiate entry into the ERM at the earliest opportunity although we know that it will not cure our economic problems overnight—far from it. But in the longer term it could provide us with the stability, terms of investment and steady growth that this country so badly needs. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel will deal with that aspect of the Motion when he winds up on this side of the House.
But if the road to economic union is strewn with difficulties, they are not insuperable, whereas the way to political union is far harder to negotiate. EMS, ERM and all the implications of economic union have been on the Community drawing board for a long time, and although political objectives have been discussed from time to time, political union has only very recently been under serious discussion. As we know, the recent initiative has been taken by Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand. We must consider very carefully in this debate the relevant extract from the communique of the Dublin Summit of 30th April. It states:
"The European Council discussed the proposal of President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl on political union and the paper submitted by the Belgian Government on the same subject. In this context the European Council confirmed its commitment to political union and decided on the following steps:
A detailed examination will be put in hand forthwith on the need for possible treaty changes with the aim of strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the union, enabling the Community and its institutions to respond efficiently and effectively to the demands of the new situation and assuring unity and coherence in the Community's international action.
Foreign Ministers will undertake this examinalion and analyse and prepare proposals to be discussed at the European Council in June with a view to a decision on the holding of a second inter-governmental conference to work in parallel with the conference on Economic and Monetary Union with a view to ratification by member states in the same time frame."
That is a crucially important communique.
We are on the threshold of the Council meeting which will decide whether to recommend that political union should be on the agenda for Rome. Will the Government support that? The Minister did not make it clear in his speech.
The implications of this are profound, more so I think, than those on the economy, mainly because of our attachment to our political institutions which are more deeply rooted than those of other countries in the Community. We want the Community to succeed. I want it to be democratic and I want Britain to be a part of it. But I do not want this Parliament to be dismantled or converted into a parish council. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, gave some welcome assurances on that in his opening remarks.
That of course is the sovereignty argument, and the debate is fundamentally about sovereignty and how much more power the Government are

1387
proposing and planning to convey to the Community. We shall need to know its extent and in which authority or authorities it will be invested. I am quite sure that the House will agree that our chief concern is accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred to the European Parliament when he spoke. There is also the Council of Ministers and the Commission. I believe that there is a genuine effort at each of those levels to operate the structure efficiently. But there is also a feeling that accountability is again not as strong as it should be. I realise that some thought has been given to this. There are the Belgian proposals, to which I have referred, the Martin Report and of course the Franco-German proposals. Those will now be followed by the Foreign Ministers' report to the Council later this month. But there is a very long way to go before we can say that a formula for political union can be presented to the 12 governments.
The Belgian aide-memoire sets out a reasonable basis for future study. Let me summarise it. The proposals aim to strengthen the existing institutional structure to make it more efficient; to increase the democratic input in this structure by strengthening the Parliament and developing the Community's social dimension; and finally to increase the convergence between political co-operation and Community policy, policy towards Central and Eastern Europe providing the first opportunity for doing so.
Most of us can sympathise with a good deal if not all of that, but we also realise that it is only the beginning of an immensely complex process. Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand have taken a lead in this initiative but we shall have to wait and see how their general words of welcome translate into practical detail. I have respect for both leaders, and I am sure that they know that a United States of Europe lies far beyond the horizon.
The full implications have not been studied seriously, in my submission. I noted that President Mitterrand said that there was no question of suppressing the national identities. It is indeed hard to contemplate a situation where one would be allowed to forget the French identity. Of course the European Parliament is focal in all these considerations. Should it be given more power, and if so, how much? Its present powers are negative; namely, the power to veto the Commission's Budget, to hold up legislation and to dismiss the Commission.
The Belgian proposals would give it the right to veto, alter and even rescind Community laws. They would also increase the power of the European Court so that compliance with its judgments would be mandatory and not voluntary as they are at present. It seems that there are significant reforms which would not radically undermine Community parliaments. But there must first be the most detailed study.
I am delighted therefore that the Select Committee of this House under the chairmanship of my noble
1388
friend Lady Serota has decided to set up an ad hoc sub-committee with the following terms of reference:
"To consider the implications for the United Kingdom and the European Community of proposals for economic and monetary union and for political union, with special reference to the institutional changes which might be involved".
The reputation of the committee's reports is well known and we may be sure that its work will be valuable. As I have said before, there is a need for all-party support for any final proposal. It is not desirable that we should move far and fast in the direction of constitutional and political reform without seeking the support of all parties in this country.
We on this side believe that against the background of the great changes taking place in Europe the Community should be deeper and wider in its membership; that it should be a real community, really European and not just a single market.
Over the years the Community has gained powers from member parliaments. But unhappily that transfer of powers has not been accompanied by greater democratic accountability and scrutiny. We know from experience in this country that undemocratic agencies can accumulate powers unobtrusively—like a thief in the night. We do not like it when it happens here, but if it developed in Europe it could be very dangerous. Autocracy lives just round the corner from every one of us and it needs to be watched all the time.
I greatly look forward to hearing the speech of my noble friend Lord Richard. He has great experience in this area and was also our ambassador to the United Nations. These are interesting and historic times but they are also unpredictable times. We must make sure that we stick to our principles and safeguard our democratic institutions for the sake of the next generation.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I welcome the Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. It will lead to a timely and useful debate. I suggest that it is timely for two reasons. First, although the general issues posed by economic, political and monetary union are well known, the particular international context in which we examine the issues has changed profoundly in recent months. Secondly, between now and December, when the first inter-governmental conference will be held in Italy, the Government will no doubt be examining the issues afresh. Therefore, this is an appropriate moment for your Lordships to consider them.
Later in the year, and I hope before the inter-governmental conference is held, the sub-committee, referred to by the leader of the Opposition and presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, will have issued its report. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, will have something to say about that. The debate provides a useful opportunity for us to consider the issues in a preliminary way.
I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, down his broad political road leading to Rugby and Birkenhead, but prefer to approach the subject from

1389
a different angle. I particularly invite your Lordships' attention to the relationship between what is happening inside the Community and the fundamental changes which are taking place elsewhere in the wider Europe. I also invite attention to the relationship between the super powers and their negotiations over disarmament and arms control.
Some noble Lords may ask whether it is right that at this moment the European Community should embark on further integration and take new steps in the direction of union, whatever that may mean, at a time when the possibility of a more general pacification between East and West has so suddenly come about. Should we not, it may be argued, stay our hand until the European Community has had an opportunity to explore more thoroughly the possibilities of co-operation with the countries of Eastern and Central Europe now that they are free to shape their destinies for the first time in a generation? Is there not, it may be asked, some potential conflict between the process of tightening and deepening upon which we are again embarking in Western Europe and the urgent need to broaden our collaboration with Eastern and Central Europe?
I do not see the question in that way. But I believe that, as these two areas of political action present themselves at the same moment, we need to be clear in our own minds about the relationship between them if we are to make the correct response in each case. In the case of the Community we should do well to reflect on the causes which lie behind this renewed impulse for integration and institutional advance. I suggest that one important cause is the positive result brought about by the changes introduced by the Single European Act. The greater use of majority voting in the Council of Ministers, and perhaps even more the knowledge that majority voting is available, has enabled the drive towards the fulfilment of the internal market to make worthwhile progress.
Your Lordships will recall that the programme was first launched by the Milan summit and was ably promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, as the commissioner responsible. It is now widely believed within the Community that the changes produced by the Single European Act—which were at the time criticised for their apparent modesty—have, in effect, transformed the atmosphere within the Community. It is the opinion of many of our partners that the successsful creation of the internal market will, in turn, require the creation of stronger and more democratic institutions to oversee its proper functioning. That is what is intended by the much-used phrase, "the democratic deficit".
Allied to that belief is a widespread impression that, since the extension of its powers in the same Single European Act, the European Parliament has used those powers in a responsible manner. I am encouraged to see that that sentiment is evident in another place, judging from a recent report of its Select Committee on Procedure. The committee examines ways in which Members of the European Parliament might be associated with the scrutiny of
1390
EC legislation. That is a most encouraging development.
Another strand in the story, and part of the impetus for more integration, is the steady purpose of those who have always believed in institutional advance in the Community. It is not surprising to find that those who enthusiastically supported the Spinelli Draft Treaty are arguing their case again. Of course, the same objections will continue to apply to their more far-reaching ideas. But we are in a new situation and it would accord with our own national approach to examine these proposals—whether for economic and monetary union or political union—in a pragmatic and careful way. I was encouraged by the remarks in another place immediately after the Dublin summit, which suggested that that is what the Prime Minister intends.
Another reason has been advanced for the need to accelerate integration, with which I disagree. It is the suggestion that the reunification of Germany makes it imperative for the Community to hasten its own institutional advance so as to bind the united Germany ever more closely to Western Europe. I find that argument defective. It does less than justice to German motives and I believe that it misunderstands them. Most Germans regarded the division of their country during the past 45 years as an arbitrary and artificial act. They had long hoped that it would be corrected but believed that it would not occur for many years to come. But now that the opportunity to restore that unity has arisen in an unexpected way it is hardly surprising that the Germans should regard that as being their most urgent task. They are addressing it in the thorough, comprehensive and democratic way which we associate with the Federal Republic. The process is quite separate from the integration of the Community, in which the political parties of the Federal German Republic also have a sincere belief There is no conflict between those two German motives and, in my opinion, any attempt to set those two processes in some kind of Hobbesian balance is quite misconceived as well as being unnecessary.
I submit that we need to consider the effect of the events in Eastern Europe on the future of the European Community. The profound changes now apparent in the political geography of Europe will need to be taken into account by the architects of political union. For example, we should note that instead of a Community with four large member states of approximately equal size in terms of population, which we have at present, we shall in future have an entity in which one member state will be both more numerous and, by any measure, more powerful than any other.
We must note that the grouping of EFTA associates, which is so important to us in trade and so close to us in outlook, is seeking a more intimate form of collaboration with the Community. Now we have a wider group of nations in Eastern and Central Europe which seek our urgent and practical help and support, and some of those also aim at ultimate membership of the Community.
I mention those facts because the second inter-governmental conference which has been

1391
proposed will need to think very carefully about the identity of the future Community—identity in terms of geography (where does Europe end?) of political scope and of cultural homogeneity. It encourages me to read that the form of association now contemplated for East European states will be of a new type adapted for their particular needs. However, we must consider where that will lead and how it will relate to the membership of EFTA, which is already knocking on our door hoping for a new kind of partnership in the Community in the so-called "European economic space".
We shall want too to reflect on the range of competence with which the Community is charged. It was very interesting to note that, in the message sent by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl to the Irish President on the eve of the recent Dublin summit, they spoke of including on the agenda of the second inter-governmental conference the definition of a common foreign and security policy. That will be a cardinal point for those who wish to discuss political union.
While I would not wish to see the Community charged with the total conduct of foreign policy nor endowed with a formal defence competence (at least not at this stage), it is possible that we might want to add to the Community's responsibilities a wider remit to handle broad questions in the area of political security. That was done only to a limited extent in the Single European Act. In the changed circumstances, additional involvement by the Community in that area would provide a valuable element of cohesion and stability in Central Europe in years to come, without—and I emphasis this—trespassing on the territory of other organisations already in being. I can see considerable advantage in making that plain at the next revision of the treaty so as to avoid any doubt about the future role of the Community.
I do not propose to examine the particular issues arising on economic monetary union which have been fully explored in public. However, I suggest that noble Lords interested in this subject might find it helpful to read a recent communication from the Commission which was forwarded to the House by the Treasury in April. That sets out the arguments in favour of economic and monetary union in a clear and convincing manner. Of course, reasoning on this subject is not capable of proof, whether it is negative or positive. We cannot regard economics as so conclusive a science, if indeed it is one. However, I find the logic of the Commission's argument in favour of economic and monetary union coherent and convincing.
The paper also gives rise to the thought that, had the structured discussions proposed in that document about the economic policy of member states been in place some years ago, we might have been spared some of our past misfortunes in the area of economic and monetary policy. At least we cannot claim that our record in this field has been an unqualified success. I believe that the disciplines proposed now could well benefit us in the future. We should note that in the latest version of the Commission's proposals, only the procedures for the
1392
discussion of national economic policy and budget deficits would be binding.
The same comments may be made generally about our exchange rate policy. We must face the fact that our economy has not prospered by comparison with those of our European neighbours either under the Bretton Woods system or under the floating rate regime which has prevailed latterly. We should have a greater justification in opposing a return to fixed rates, this time on a quite different basis, if we could ourselves point to a more convincing record.
It is my hope that we can approach all these issues without preconceptions in the very important discussions which lie ahead in the coming months.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for initiating this debate although he is not in his place at the moment. In his brief historical analysis of our membership of the Community, without making any contentious remarks, I should have been grateful if he had mentioned that it was Mr. Heath, a Conservative Prime Minister, who took us into the European Community.
Before making a few observations on this debate, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the opportunity to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The last time I heard him was in the European Parliament: he was a very distinguished commissioner at the time.
This will be a difficult debate. We all look at the position of Europe in rather a different way. Nevertheless, I believe I am right in saying that it is the first time that the House has been able to address the subject in a spirit of all-party unity. For the first time, I believe, it is in the manifesto of the Labour Party that it believes in the future of Britain within the European Community. I hope that I have phrased that correctly. Therefore, we can now approach the matter as one that is non-contentious between the parties and one on which we can go forward together. That is, after all, what the vast majority of people in Britain wish.
I make three preliminary remarks. As my noble friend the Minister said, the Prime Minister has set out the parameters within which she would regard political union. We in this country become very excited and taken up with what can be called Euro-jargon words. However, political union means something different to almost everybody. Let us be quite clear that the rhetoric that we hear from leading statesmen on the Continent is often quite distant from the political realities of which they are aware.
If you speak to members of any other national parliament, I assure noble Lords that they share the same sentiments as Members of our national Parliament. They do not wish to see political union in the form of a federation and the removal of their own powers. That is quite understandable.
It should be said that although so often in our press we see criticisms of the United Kingdom and the way it conducts itself on the Continent, it should be observed that over and over again it is the United Kingdom which takes the lead on so many issues

1393
which are of mutual interest to member states. I allude to my own past as chairman of the legal affairs committee of the European Parliament. I was very well aware that, time and time again, on very contentious and difficult issues it was the United Kingdom which sought to unlock the complex difficulties which arose between member states. Often, too, it was the United Kingdom which was on the side of the qualified majority vote in favour of a directive rather than on the side of one or two minority countries which abstained from voting. That is seldom recognised in the public eye. We tend to be condemned very unfairly in many instances. That does not mean that the United Kingdom does not fight its own corner. It is perfectly proper that it should, as the other 11 member states do. In this country we tend to denigrate ourselves rather too easily and quickly, without looking at the realities.
My noble friend referred to the reform of the institutions. As everyone realises we are in an extraordinary situation in the course of European history. We see barriers tumbling down in all directions, both internally within the European Community and externally in Eastern European countries. Within the Community there is a need to look at the way in which institutions are working. In this Parliament we are always looking to see how we should adapt to new situations, demands and pressures. That is also true within the Community.
The Commission itself needs overhauling to some extent. It is a very efficient bureaucracy, and certainly the most open bureaucracy that I have ever come across. I should like to pay tribute to the very high standard of the officials with whom I, in my modest capacity, have had to deal. However, in the new system of "comitology" which was set up under the Single European Act, whole rafts of secondary legislation are adopted in advisory, management or regulatory committees and such legislation is not published until adopted. It affects the rights and needs of individuals, groups and other interests. If my noble friend is to propose some changes in the institutions and the way they work, this is certainly something that should be looked at closely.
The Commission must be obliged to publish every draft that comes before these committees before being adopted so that, if necessary, there can be some form of European parliamentary or governmental intervention or objection. Certainly, a recent case before the European Court is one which gives us great pleasure in the European Parliament, Under Article 173 the European Parliament is not allowed to take a case before the Eurpean Court in order to annul a decision of another institution. But the European Court of Justice has recently handed down a decision granting admissibility of the Parliament to bring a case before the court. This strengthens the hand of the European Parliament in its control and scrutiny of the Commission's activities. I hope very much that we shall see a reform of Article 173 of the EC Treaty brought forward later this year or the beginning of next year.
Thirdly, the co-operation procedure should be much more widely used. It is seldom recognised, certainly in this country, that over 50 per cent. of all the amendments adopted by the European
1394
Parliament in its plenary sessions pass, either in substance or verbatim, into European Community law. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, understandably referred only to the negative powers of the European Parliament. But the power is a very formidable one when there are so many amendments such a vast proportion of which are now adopted and take their place in European Community law which of course comes down into national law. That is indeed a reason why there should be much closer co-operation between members of the European Parliament and members of national parliaments. I hope very much that the committees being set up in another place will give substance and strength to the co-operation which is ceded for political and other reasons by MEPs from the United Kingdom to those committees. I believe that MEPs can make a very valuable contribution to the political developments of the Community.
With regard to the budget, Parliament is one of the budgetary authorities with the Council. Here again, it is clear that the difference between obligatory and non-obligatory expenditure should be abolished and that Parliament should have equal rights as regards both parts of the budget in conjunction, of course, with the Council. Its powers should also be strengthened in the budgetary control committee where it really could be much more effective in its scrutiny of the Commission's expenditure and of the different programmes and policies set up through the Commission. I believe that if the Parliament is able to keep its main base in Brussels it will facilitate more effective and efficient working. As your Lordships will know, the peripatetic existence of parliamentarians has made it extremely difficult, with all the goodwill and stamina in the world that so many MEPs have, for them to do their work as competently as they would wish.
I would make one comment about the Council. Many MEPs and others have asked that decisions should be taken in public by the Council. I believe this to be both a non-starter and unnecessary. Members of the Council must be able to negotiate in private. Under the co-operation procedure the Council is obliged after first reading to publish a common position. So it is already known before legislation comes to be adopted what the thinking of the Council is. And, of course, it is also generally known what line different member states take. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to press in that particular area.
There is one aspect which I do not think has been raised so far regarding the control and scrutiny of European activity. Although European political co-operation has been mentioned, we have seen between 1979 and now—I think the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would agree—a remarkable change in the Community's institutions. We have seen a whole series of "building blocks" set up in different areas. We have the European Space Agency, the European Environmental Agency and the Trevi meetings of ministers of the interior deciding matters of asylum and immigration together with trans-border travel. We have of course European political co-operation. All these things, with others, have been set up, but

1395
they are not properly scrutinised, certainly not by national parliaments, and not even by the European Parliament. I believe that a study should be made of how these different blocks might be looked at so that in some way the decisions and the processes by which the decisions are taken can be scrutinised more closely. The development of European political co-operation, I believe, is essential for the strength of Europe.
Many of your Lordships will have felt as I did when reading about the meetings between President Bush and Mr. Gorbachev and will have wondered why the whole future of Europe was being decided at Camp David, or at any rate in the United States. Why was not a European or someone representing European interests involved? Our own territories and the lives of subjects throughout the European Community were clearly the subject of major discussions. The decisions taken during those last few days could affect the whole future of this area of the world. I believe that our Government and the governments of other member states must look much more closely at the way European political co-operation is to work, how it is to be controlled and how we can have effective leadership on the world stage in foreign policy. Certainly, for the future of Europe as a whole, it is essential that we should speak with one voice. We have the largest population and we are the largest trading bloc, yet our voice is minimal. The only place where it seems to have been actively developed is at the United Nations. There, it has been able to strengthen its voice in the field of international affairs. Nevertheless, I think the past week has shown us how Europe has lost out and will continue to lose out in discussing the future unless we can develop EPC.
I do not want to say too much about economic union because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has said, we have debated the topic so often in this House. I firmly believe that the ecu will become more widely used, encouraged by industry and tourism as the single market develops. There are many firms which now do their accounting in ecus in cases of trans-border trade, and I believe this is to the benefit of Europeans as a whole. Your Lordships may indeed have seen that there is now a FF500 note printed on the reverse side with the value in ecus. It would be pleasing to hear my noble friend the Minister say that we here shall be producing a £5 or £10 note with sterling shown on one side and ecus on the other, so that the notes can be taken across to the Continent and used without problem.
As regards external pressures on the Community, there have been changes in Eastern Europe, as most speakers have mentioned. However, let us all admit how fragile that change is. There are differences of environment, of training, of personnel and in the development of economies. The European Community has a great role to play in supporting Eastern Europe and strengthening its future. We can do that only if we ourselves in the Community are strong. It will not help our purpose to have a weak or diluted European Community if we wish to play a real part in the future of Europe as a whole.
1396
The castle of Europe has not been mentioned but I believe that it should be used as the gateway for these Eastern European countries to come into the Community. It is the castle of Europe which enforces recognition of multi-party systems and of course they would have to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights and accept fundamental freedoms which, after all, are the basic conditions for membership of the Community. Therefore, I would welcome a policy from member states that for all countries which wish to join the Community, perhaps in the distant future 10 to 20 years from now, it should be a training ground for democracy to be part of the Council of Europe.
Finally, as regards security, NATO has served us well over these 40 years. Let us keep NATO. Let us encourage Germany to remain in NATO. I believe that Mr. Gorbachev realises only too well how valuable it is to him that Germany should be part of NATO and not a neutral country lying between Western Europe and the Soviet Union; though clearly it will be difficult for him to get that message across after 40 years of propaganda and saying how evil NATO was. It may therefore take a little time to switch the mentality of the Russian people to understand that NATO is probably their best friend just as it has been our best friend for so many years.
I conclude by saying that history has shown that economic prosperity will only come in a strong democracy and that peace will only come if we have a strong defence. Those are the two principles to which I hope the Government will be looking as they develop their policies for closer integration within the Community.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am indeed grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and I am delighted to see too that she has lost none of the determination, vigour and enthusiasm that she had when she presided over the affairs of that somewhat unruly body, the European Parliament.
1 echo some other speakers in this debate who have said that it is both timely and important. I entirely echo that view and totally agree with it. Qualities that we need in our approach to the Community must include clarity and consistency. I hope that the debate this afternoon will aid the process of making our policy clearer, more consistent and more understandable.
Our relations with the Community should be those of congratulations for what has been achieved in the past and of hope for what we think may be achieved in the future. After all, the achievements have been great and the possibilities are immense; but regrettably our relations with the Community are not so perceived in this country today. They are too often seen to be matters of confrontation, almost of mutual irritation. Every meeting of the European Council tends to be presented and weighed in terms of national gains or losses. Sessions of the Council of Ministers tend to be viewed as attempts by others to impose their collective will on us; indeed, attempts which should be resisted and if at all possible repelled. It is all really rather sad because in reality

1397
the prospects opened up by a greater degree of European unity, particularly having regard to what is happening in Eastern Europe, must surely be welcomed with enthusiasm as opportunities rather than resisted as if they were a serious danger to our national culture and identity.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that the fault does not seem to me to lie solely with the present Government. I must say also—and I do so, knowing the traditions of this House, in as uncontroversial a way as I can—that the attitude of the present Administration has not been immediately and obviously helpful in that regard. However, the fault goes further back.
If one were to characterise the three major blunders of British foreign policy since the war, with the possible exception of Suez they would all be connected with our attitudes and policies towards the Community. First, we said that the Six would never get their act together sufficiently to create the Community at all. We were wrong. Secondly, we said that if they created a Community its internal tensions would mean that it could not amount to very much. We were wrong. Thirdly, we said that if they created a Community and if it survived and prospered it would not seriously affect British interests. Again we were wrong.
With hindsight, it is hard to imagine a series of misjudgments of more breath-taking insularity and, as it turned out, more damaging to our national interests. Therefore, we begin any discussion or approach to the Community from the starting point of collective misappreciation. Having started from that point it has been a catching up process for this country ever since. We still seem to fail to appreciate the nature and the extent of the transformations which are now taking place. Now that the debate on the principle of membership of the Community is dead, the real argument should surely be about how to maximise our position inside the Community and how best to influence those collective decisions which directly and deeply affect our continuing prosperity and indeed our social cohesion. That is true whether we place it in the context of developments in British agriculture, future employment policy, or just about anything else.
It is not for me today, on the first occasion that I have burdened the House, to venture into the intricacies of the exchange rate mechanism or the European monetary system. Noble Lords will realise that naturally I have my views on those matters, and in due course I hope to have an opportunity to express them. However, I venture to make four perhaps more general points, all of which seem to me to be relevant to our whole approach to the problems of greater unity inside the Community.
First, we really must stop regarding foreigners, particularly those who are closest to us geographically, as if they were inconvenient distractions from the main business of government, which is of course to preserve our national sovereignty against their knavish tricks. Reading the press during the past week one would be forgiven for believing that war had been redeclared, this time against a new enemy. There is, I must tell the House, a long history in the Community of using health
1398
arguments to protect trade interests. I must also tell the House that it is by no means confined to one nation.
I remember well a disease called Newcastle disease. I am sure that noble Lords will remember it too. It was a plague which was apparently about to fall upon the great British public from French turkeys if French turkeys were to be admitted into Britain in the run-up to Christmas 1983. The Commission went into the matter in some detail; first, to see whether there had been any unlawful state aids to the French turkey interests, and, secondly, to see whether or not there was anything in Newcastle disease. We came to the conclusion that it was a disease that did not have a great effect, as far as we could tell, either on the turkeys or on the people who might eat them. The House will not be surprised to hear that it was a disease that disappeared as quickly as it came—in fact, as soon as 25th December had passed and French turkeys had been excluded from the British market at Christmas!
The only point I make is the simple one that we should not be quite so ready to assume that everyone else in the Community cheats apart from ourselves. Moreover, we should also not forget that despite these trade irritations, which are sometimes considerable, members of the Community are nevertheless prepared to co-operate and co-ordinate their policies in what they perceive to be the common good.
Secondly—this follows from a recognition of our interdependence within the Community—let us learn to pursue those common interests and common solutions in what I hope is a more sensible way. A diplomatic approach which starts off by sandbagging—perhaps I should say handbagging—the opposition as an immediate precursor to the search for a consensus is certainly a novel diplomatic approach; but is it effective? To pursue a consensus requires a readiness to listen and a willingness to compromise. Of course one must have regard to vital national interests—that goes without saying—but the difficulty always lies in defining those national interests and in determining how best to defend them. It is that which creates the problem.
The four years that I spent on the Commission were dominated—I use the word advisedly—by the difficulties associated with the United Kingdom's contribution to the Community budget. It was, and indeed it is, an issue the importance of which I do not minimise. A lingering sense of grievance or unfairness is no basis on which to proceed. All that is perfectly true. But the way in which the argument was presented, almost to the conscious disregard of other issues about which our partners felt equally strongly, created a reservoir of ill-will and irritation in our over-lectured partners which I fear is not yet exhausted.
Thirdly, we must not continue—I echo what has already been said by some speakers this afternoon—to give the impression that for us Europe is only about trade and economics. I declare a former interest as regards social policy because that is the portfolio I had when I was on the Commission. I was attempting to guide the formulation of social

1399
policy. Social policy, the human face of the Community, or whatever you like to call it, is taken more seriously by almost all of our partners than it is by us. If we are to make a success of 1992 and beyond that social dimension cannot be ignored.
Finally, I echo what my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said about the institutions of the Community and the necessity for a greater degree of democratic accountability. I shall not go into the details of arguments on the subject this evening. I merely say this. The argument about the democratic accountability of the institutions of the Community is joined whether or not this country likes it and whether we are prepared to participate in that argument fully or whether we wish to stand on the sidelines and look at it. The argument is joined at least by the other members of the Community. The sadness and the danger which I feel and which I should like to warn about is that yet again events will take place, attitudes will be formulated, institutions may be created and this country will be standing outside looking at them. We shall be finding ourselves again trying to catch up and to join institutions which, if only we had had the perception to have participated at their formulation, we should be in a much better position to influence.
In the Community we are moving from an era of slow decision-making to one of quicker decision-making. Consensus-building is slow; votes and vetoes are quicker. I believe that there will be more votes and fewer vetoes. The danger I perceive is that, when the votes take place, this country will find itself too often on the losing side. I am obliged to the House for its indulgence.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, with very great pleasure it falls to me, speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to congratulate him on his maiden speech; all the more so because I fully support the thrust of his remarks. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded us, he had a remarkable career at the United Nations when he led our delegation there. Subsequently he was a commissioner in Brussels. As he has told us, in that capacity he was concerned with the formulation of social policy. There is not the slightest doubt that, when we come to that subject and later phases of considering our relationship with the European Community, he will be able to play a major role in advising us.
The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is one of a number of Members of this House who have had direct experience of the European Community. We have a distinguished number of former commissioners and some of them will be speaking today. There is the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—though his name is not on the list of speakers—and my noble friend Lord Thomson. Not least there is my noble friend Lord Jenkins, who was a most distinguished president of the Community. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, who contributed so much to the affairs of the European Parliament.
1400
With persons with direct experience of the affairs of the Community and with the sterling work of our Select Committee, we are probably unique among assemblies in Western Europe with our in-depth, detailed and considered knowledge of the affairs of the Community. I believe that this fact will stand us in very good stead as we reach the crucial discussions in the future concerning the next steps in the Community. In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said that the Government will continue to consult us at every stage and will listen to the differing views, some of which they may agree with and others not but all of which will be based on a full consideration and knowledge of this important subject.
In introducing this debate my noble friend Lord Jenkins drew attention to what has perhaps been one of the most interesting and fundamental issues that we as a nation have faced since the war. I believe that it will be called by future historians the "European question". We have never really come to terms with that question. In considering what our policy should be in the future we should take a quick look at what has happened in the past.
Looking briefly at the Community, there is no doubt at all that when Jean Monnet, supported by M. Schuman, launched the project with coal and steel in 1950, they started something that was fundamentally new in the history of our old Continent. It was taken up enthusiastically by a number of other countries.
At that stage I was involved as a representative of the British coal industry in considering what response the then Attlee Government should give to the invitation to us to join the European Coal and Steel Community. The working party with which I was involved was positive in its view as to what our response should be but for political reasons the Government decided otherwise. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that that was a mistaken decision.
Since the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community, there was a period of great difficulty in the Community. In my opinion the next big step forward was one with which the name of my noble friend Lord Jenkins will always be associated; namely, the creation of the European monetary system. It was the creation of that system in 1979 which has continued successfully, much to the surprise of many people in this country. It has represented a further historic step in the creation of Europe.
After the signing of the Treaty of Rome and the formation of the EMS, the third step has been the signing of the single market treaty in which we are full participants. We have been contributing much to its formulation. Then there has been the move towards EMU, economic and monetary union, and, finally, there are the proposals for political union.
Therefore, we must admit that Western Europe is very much on the move. I travel a good deal on the Continent, mainly in a commercial and industrial capacity. What is happening there is taken for granted. The deepening of the Community is accepted without question as being what has to be

1401
continued at the present time and all the more so in the light of the developments in Eastern Europe. In that regard I differ slightly from the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who seems to take another view on the subject.
We now have a more united momentum on the part of our European partners as to the next steps in the creation of Europe than we have ever witnessed before. The question remains as to what our response should be to that momentum. We have, to say the least, appeared to be reticent. We have been reminded on numerous occasions from the Government Benches and others that the United Kingdom contribution to what is going on in the Community is substantial. I agree with that. A great deal of work is going on, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, reminded us. But when it comes to policy statements and to general attitudes we give the impression of considerable reticence, to use the mildest term that I can think of. That, rather than the hard work going on at the coal face, if I may employ that phrase, is what communicates itself to people. The time has come to consider whether we should reconsider our attitude and where it is leading us.
I fully accept that in historic terms entering the European Community in a wholehearted and unreserved manner has been a very difficult choice for this country. With our imperial past, our Commonwealth past and our special relationship with the United States, there has always been the feeling that we should not become too committed to one part of the world because it might jeopardise our relations elsewhere. For example, in the time of Sir Anthony Eden there was the talk of the three circles. It was said that somehow Britain was at the centre of those circles—the European circle, the Atlantic circle and the Commonwealth circle.
The other factor that has complicated our approach to Europe is the feeling that what we really want out of Europe is a free trade area, a point to which a number of noble Lords have already referred. That, I suppose, is one of the reasons why we signed the single market treaty with such alacrity. It would remove the obstacles to trade so that we could move the packages across the frontiers, as my noble friend said in his opening speech. A good many people prefer to see the development of a free trade area and the removal of the obstacles to trade so that governments can get on with the business of governing their countries. That formulation would be entirely satisfactory to many people. It is, however, no longer a feasible formulation. The way Western Europe is developing and the commitments already made to that development would prevent that easy solution. We have to come to terms with those fundamental issues.
The Europe that is being created today is not simply a Europe of trade. That is not the way in which any Continental Western European country sees it. I believe that an increasing number of people in this country are also beginning to realise that. But even in matters of trade one cannot just stop by removing the physical obstacles, whether they be tariff barriers or non-tariff barriers. Trade cannot flow freely unless we have something approaching a
1402
single currency. The fluctuation of currencies is a large impediment to trade. It is a major non-tariff barrier. It is easy for some to say that traders can always insure themselves against fluctuations. Of course they can, but it all adds to the cost of the operation. If we really want to create a single market, a single market currency follows as night follows day. This is what we have to work for.
I am a little reluctant to accept the alternative proposals put forward by the Government. They have said that we should go to stage one and then have competing currencies. Competing currencies and letting the best currency win means only one thing—a currency area effectively dominated by the deutschmark. Is that what we want? The Germans themselves are ready to put their currency at the disposal of a single currency operation. If they are ready to do it, which would safeguard the rest of us, why should we be pleading an alternative solution which would inevitably lead us to being subjugated and submerged by the deutschmark in a free currency operation? I have found it very difficult to understand the rationale of the Government's alternative proposals. I am relieved that they are not being taken very seriously by other countries as I do not believe that they would be in our interests let alone anyone else's.
There are other aspects of the matter. The question of political union has now come on to the agenda. Of course this has begun by being a general declaration of intent. That happens to be the way our Continental friends work. Right from the start in the Community there have been declarations of intent and then the detail has been worked out later. We prefer to do it the other way—we prefer to start with the detail and see where it leads us. It has been unfortunate that the Government's principal response to this idealistic vision of a future Europe united in like-minded institutions and objectives has been that we should first sit down and discuss what it is not going to do.
I happen to be on a number of commercial and industrial boards. If I went to a board meeting with a proposition for the expansion of the business and one of my colleagues said to me, "Wait a minute; before we consider your plan for expanding the business let us go through all the ways in which the business should not be expanded", I would take a very dim view of that colleague's intervention. We give that impression to our friends on the Continent. There is no harm in our having a different view about what political union should be, but to start by setting down what it should not be seems to create a rather reluctant impression.
What we need to do seriously at this juncture, with all that is happening in Eastern Europe, with the momentum that has been developing in Western Europe and with the much greater importance which now attaches to Western Europe in world terms, is to reassess our role. Indeed we need to address ourselves to the very question which has been raised in such a timely way in the Motion put to us today by my noble friend Lord Jenkins. I hope that in that reassessment, without in any way minimising our own interest as a nation, we would seek to identify the extent to which those interests could be better

1403
served by doing it in conjunction with our European partners. That is what it is all about.
The question of sovereignty is frequently raised but there is no real sovereignty these days among nations which trade with one another. A large chunk of British sovereignty was given up with the removal of exchange controls. Once money moves freely, once people move freely and once goods move freely, there is a limitation on sovereignty. There is no harm in sovereignty being given up in that way in the wider interest. The time when sovereignty has to be defended to the end and to the limit is when there is a hostile intent, as has happened in two world wars. Then one defends one's sovereignty to the limit. But when there is the prospect of linking up with others with similar institutions, political backgrounds and so on in the common interest to do these things together more effectively than we can do them separately, to talk about defending sovereignty can create the wrong impression.
We now need to make a reassessment of many issues. We need to reassess our attitude to developments in the Community and to Europe in general. We need to reassess our attitude to the momentum that has very clearly developed. I suspect that we are doing that. I say "I suspect" because some of the speeches made from the Government side from time to time are a little coded, but when they are decoded, as the newspapers have tried to do recently, a more positive intent seems to be emerging. I hope that is true and I hope that we in this House can help that forward.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on his maiden speech, which reflected his considerable first-hand knowledge and his wide historical perspective of the European question. It is with that historic perspective that I should like to begin my remarks. When we discuss today, following the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, the future of European unity we must first of all count our blessings, for never in a thousand years of history has there been a more auspicious and stable Europe than that of the European Community. It is not only a functioning institution; it is also the epicentre of an evolving process. But with all its imperfections the Europe of the Twelve is a healthy organism which is flexible enough to weather much turbulence and bend to changing circumstances.
I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and those of other noble Lords when they sketch certain route maps and timetables for the economic sphere, especially when they urge us to join the European monetary system. I emphatically believe that in this context we should put on record the fact that much more must be done in the educational and cultural field. Of course, I applaud the sentiments that reach for growing consensus in the political realm. More co-ordination of foreign and social policy is a worthy aspiration, but such aspirations should be much more carefully thought through than they have been. The processes may be hastened but not rushed.
1404
I know that there is a widespread impression abroad that the British Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have acted as silencers of the sonorous clarion calls from Paris, Bonn and Brussels. But there has also been a very recent perception—and I believe my feeling in this is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—that, while on-stage Mrs. Thatcher may have sounded muted tones for European unity, both the French and German leaders tend to hammer a whole octave lower off-stage. Whenever the vital interests of the two great Continental powers are at stake, they are just as self-assertive as they have ever been. They may ask for sweeping powers for the Strasbourg Parliament but, in reality, neither the French Chamber of Deputies nor the Bundestag relishes the thought of turning into rubber-stamping assemblies; just as at any time the British Prime Minister baulks at the thought of the Palace of Westminster being downgraded to a listed building.
In essence there may be much more scope for co-ordinating European foreign relations. There is still a legitimate role for the traditional, individual foreign policies to be shaped and practised in the old chancelleries of Europe. I for one am reassured living in a country the government of which do not share Spain's compassionate regard for Fidel Castro, France's complaisance for Saddam Hussein, Italy's benevolence towards Colonel Gadaffi or Greece's uncritical respect for Chairman Arafat. I approve of a government who do not lightly offer the other cheek to states protecting terrorism in the awareness that those states, while occasionally releasing some prisoners with one hand, still hold or snatch more captives with the other.
I believe that rather then rushing into rapid institutionalisation we should greatly expand into European trade, industrial mergers, tourism and educational and cultural exchanges. But, above all, we should strengthen the human links of the Community and shed those stereotypes of old received ideas and misconceptions about our neighbours. Let us discard this Maginot mentality which only focuses on dangers of the past rather than on the perils of the future and neglects opportunities offered by radical change. Let us see our neighbours as they are today in a fresh light for there is now a generation of truly new Europeans.
Such a new attitude of mind will help us to deal much more effectively with the great momentous issues and priorities before us—none more momentous or immediate than the question of German unification and Germany's role in a uniting Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, quite rightly, that a united Germany must be expected to play a political role commensurate with its economic prowess. Fortunately, the record and achievement of the Federal Republic, not only in the economic and other material fields but also in the sphere of human rights, the building of a fully functioning civil society, a healthy respect for the third world, and a revulsion against militarism among the young are hugely impressive.
Two generations of Germans that bear no responsibility for the decades of darkness have governed and been governed in exemplary fashion.

1405
In fact, future historians may well consider that era of Bonn as the truly golden age of German history. Far from being resigned to or grudgingly acknowledging this achievement, we in Britain should feel a sort of co-proprietorial pride in having played a major role in the early stages of democratising and humanising many sectors of German political life: the German trade unions, a free press, school reforms, notions of civic ethics and much besides.
Like so many others, I must admit that I still see Hitler's footprints far from erased. The virus of racism and anti-semitism is rampant once again, but today it does not nest on German soil. Instead, it is spreading fast both east and south. Let us give credit where it is due. In 45 years no neo-Nazi movement in Germany has sent a single deputy into the legislative chamber. In a country that has lost in two world wars more than two-fifths of its historic national territory, only the other day the one major party of the extreme Right, a party of revisionism and revanchism, had secured a mere 1.9 per cent. of the vote while, regrettably, elsewhere—for instance, in France—its equivalent is safely ensconced with 11 per cent., 12 per cent. or 14 per cent. of the vote. In Italy a neo-fascist movement can claim up to one-tenth of the electorate.
1 believe that the consolidation of Anglo-German relations must be one of the most important objectives of British foreign policy, just as the consolidation of a united Germany embedded within the Community must be the prime objective of all Europeans and of course the prime objective of any German Government. Chancellor Kohl's insistence on speedy coalescence of the different provinces of the German Democratic Republic with the federal units of West Germany, set forth in Article 23 of the West German constitution, is the most solid recipe for a smooth transition of the troubled former communist lands into a free and democratic policy.
The European Community is already tackling with laudable speed the question of assisting the Central and East European countries. The thrust towards democracy in the lands between the Baltic and the Black Sea may well be irreversible, but the traumas of transition are tremendous. The gap between great expectations and sparse results facing untutored, raw electorates may create tremendous new dangers. Worse still, old demons, amalgams of communist and fascist relics, may well resurface in new garbs and thwart the progress in Central and Eastern Europe at the end of this century, just as the diehard Bourbons and Bonapartistes eroded France's constitutional monarchy and its second republic in the last. Will the newly enfranchised peoples surmount the turmoil, or will patience snap in the face of economic distress, administrative inefficiency or moral lapses by the new untried governing elites?
Above all, and worst of all, will the colossus in the East survive the most excruciating time of troubles in all its imperial history? Nevertheless, we must have faith in the enduring will for freedom inherent in the peoples of those lands and we must resolve to do all we can to make the transition to democracy as smooth as possible. Before long these nations should share many of the benefits of the EFTA
1406
countries. But we are entitled to ask for strict disciplines. Far from bundling them together—there is a great danger of thinking of them as a whole—we should one by one insist that they show us how they can establish those economic practices as well as observe those human rights and standards of which we can approve. At the same time, we should not delay the continuous growth and expansion of the European Community beyond the benchmark year of 1992.
There are at the moment some suitable candidates who could add hugely to our strength. I should like to refer to Austria's application of 17th July 1989 to become a full member of the Community. The positive arguments speak for themselves. Austria is a successful democracy, economically prosperous and geographically a key link between north and south, east and west. Seventy per cent. of its trade is already transacted with the Community. There may well be two sources of possible misgiving. Austria's status of permanent neutrality is sometimes considered to be a question mark. However, recent developments in the East have largely, if not wholly removed its significance. In fact, as Austria has played such an active and constructive role internationally as one of the most helpful actors in the CSCE process and in the framework of the United Nations peace keeping efforts, it should be considered a valuable asset rather than a liability. Further, there is a feeling in some quarters that Austria's adherence would be "Anschluss by the back door", reviving echoes of a greater Germany; but that can be easily countered by the manifest emergence of an unselfconscious and genuine Austrian identify and by the practical consideration that, as an equal member of the Community, Austria would less than ever have to lean on a powerful neighbour.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked where Europe ends and where are its frontiers. I hope that by the end of this millenium at least some if not all of the EFTA countries and a few of the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe might join the solidly built house of Europe. A dream of wider structures which would see Europe in ever closer friendship and partnership with the great democracies of America and a reformed Russia, a dream of a great community from Vancouver to Vladivostok, is today far less Utopian and far more real than the prophetic vision of that French exile in wartime Britain, cited by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, Jean Monnet, when he produced his first blueprint for a coal and steel community which would evolve into a common and ultimately single European market—and all this still within the lifetime of most of us who are today in your Lordships' House.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the debate. The terms of the Motion are of particular interest since they in a sense go back on the philosophy of the founders of the European Community among whom, above all, is Mr. Jean Monnet, the predecessor but four of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as President of the European Commission.

1407
Mr. Monnet and the other founders of the Community felt, even after two world wars caused by nationalism, that nationalism in Europe was so strong that there was no point in trying to persuade the European states to sit down at some great conference in the Palace of Versailles to sign away ther national sovereignties. If one believed in European unity, as of course they did, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, does, the way to obtain it was to begin with small things. Start with coal and steel first, if the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will forgive me for referring to coal as a small matter, and in the end one would achieve one's aims. To paraphrase what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, described as the route to Birmingham via Beachy Head, the way to the heavenly city of European union was via lettuces and tomatoes.
In a sense that has worked. We have not had a major conference on European union since the 1950s. Had we had one at any time, I have no doubt that the European Community would have collapsed. That is what makes the present situation so extraordinarily interesting. There is the possibility of an inter-governmental conference on European union within the year. I am not sure that we have reached the stage of maturity in this country nor indeed in some other European countries where we can afford such an international conference to consider signing away sovereignty in the way that the Motion suggests.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on a positive and constructive speech. It must have given all sceptics of the Government's European policy grounds for confidence and optimism, as I do not believe that I have heard in the House a governmental speech so positively phrased. There are one or two points upon which I disagree with my noble friend; I shall come to those in a minute.
Before we settle to discussing what kind of European union we have or should have, we need to resolve six major points. I should like to draw attention to them. First, there is the question of Central Europe. Let us call it Central rather than Eastern Europe because the phrase "Eastern Europe" means eastward looking, and the countries about which we are talking were always referred to as Mitteleuropa before 1914 and 1939. Obviously, Western Europe has the major role to play in leading those countries back towards civil and civilised societies, of which they were in reach before 1914 or 1939. However, that is a difficult matter.
The idea that eight new countries from Eastern Europe could, within the foreseeable future, try to join the Community, as well perhaps as five out of the six EFTA countries, not to speak of Malta, which I understand applied to join the Community yesterday, suggests an enormous task. Is it conceivable that the European Community of 2010 could have 24 members? As I understand it, the Community of Twelve works reasonably well; but a greatly expanded number of nation state members of the Community would threaten the work that has already been achieved.
My conclusion is that in Western Europe we should press ahead as fast as possible to achieve the
1408
single market to which we have already given our names, carry out that degree of European monetary and economic union which we decide we want and carry through the institutional changes which we think appropriate, before we accept large numbers of new applications. That will obviously be a delicate and sensitive matter, especially as it is clear that, by the end of the year, the East Germans, as part of the newly united Germany, will probably already be European Community nationals. If the East Germans are already in the door, so to speak, it will make it difficult for us to be other than encouraging in the long term towards the Poles, the Czechs, the Hungarians and others who will obviously wish to apply.
My second point is that we must take extremely seriously the need to make the European union which we are constructing as profound (in every sense of the word) as possible in order to enable the newly united Germany to find its satisfaction within it. In this respect, I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who seemed to feel that to make a special effort to satisfy a united Germany within the European Community was unnecessary. I see what he meant; nevertheless the Germans themselves are surely aware of the anxiety which their unification could cause among their neighbours. After all, it is they who have so often quoted the admirable phrase of Thomas Mann: he said that he wished to see not the germanisation of Europe but the Europeanisation of Germany.
Thirdly, we should take a good look again at the ideas canvassed in the 1950s, and subsequently from time to time, for some kind of European security organisation. There was a time when to mention such a suggestion was to risk accusations that one was likely to cause decoupling with the United States. I remember making this suggestion at a conference at Konigswinter and the then editor of the Sunday Times telling me that I was risking the future of civilisation itself. I knew perfectly well if I had caused such a reaction I must be on the right lines.
Now, however, that point of view is no longer so eccentric. My noble friend Lord Carrington suggested it at Luxembourg earlier this year when delivering the Winston Churchill Memorial Lecture. On these Benches I am fortunate enough to have been bred in the good old school which suggests that when my noble friend Lord Carrington takes up a point of view, it is bound to be both practical and desirable. In the changed strategic situation of the world after the collapse of communism which is apparently no longer a threat, as the United States Secretary of Defence said, we should, cautiously, no doubt (the Soviet Union still being a major nuclear power with a large arsenal of nuclear weapons scattered around the surface of the Soviet Union, including, I understand, some territories which are already wishing to secede) reconsider these ideas for a European security organisation which could in the long run arrange for Europe to look after her own defence.
Fourthly, we should carefully consider this word "subsidiarity" which I find difficult to pronounce; it is an ugly word. I understand that it originated in the Vatican. There is no harm in that. The whole

1409
idea of representative government is said to have derived originally from Vatican procedures in the Middle Ages. Although "subsidiarity" gives the impression of being a clear concept, it is not really at all clear what it means. Therefore, we should contemplate a new treaty on subsidiarity, as suggested by Otto von Habsburg, MEP, in a recent interview with Dr. George Urban, published in the journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Why is this necessary? It is necessary because the whole ambiguity as to what should be within the competence of the European Community and what should remain within the competence of the nation state seems to me to risk damaging the relations between this country and her fellow members of the Community.
My next point relates to the democratic deficit, a rather unworthy way of describing the need to increase democratic accountability within the Community. We have had interesting contributions on the matter in the course of the debate from my noble friend Lady Elles and also from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in his admirable maiden speech. I feel, however, that unless we contemplate sooner or later the European Parliament having its own tax-raising powers, we shall not take the Parliament seriously nor will the Parliament take itself seriously. This is something we should consider.
I have two other points, the first of which relates to this country. We need to make a psychological change. It is 17 years since we signed the Treaty of Rome, during the course of which European law has applied in this country. We have more or less accepted a federal agriculture and a federal policy relating to fisheries. It is plain that during these years we have had no intention of withdrawing from the Community. Nevertheless, as several noble Lords have pointed out, many seem to suppose that the battles of 1961, 1973 and 1975 have to be fought, even now, every day. If we read leader writers even in the quality papers we feel that the option of withdrawing from the Community is still considered, even though the real chances of another place contemplating the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 must be as remote as the possibility of the Queen dissolving Parliament and sending for a Member of your Lordships' House to form a government.
The fact is that we are in the European Community, even though the nation has not fully accepted it. The Governraent could do a great deal more to try to get over this psychological block. Now that the Opposition have become convinced of the virtues of the Community, they have a great responsibility also to do so. I have never seen the bishops take part in a debate on Europe but they also could play a part; universities too—why not? At all events, it is necessary to carry out what I suppose it will be fair to say—recalling Thomas Mann's remark—is the Europeanisation of Britain at the same time as the Europeanisation of Germany.
When thinking how all this fits together, I am aware that I have not devoted adequate attention to the terms of the Motion before us. If we resolve the questions which I have indicated as being important
1410
positively and constructively, we shall, however, find that it will not matter much whether we are operating, or think we are operating, within a European confederation, a federation or a union. All these words are vague, and have different meanings, or are understood to mean different things, in different countries. It will all the same have become plain that we shall have formed an association which will dominate our lives and the lives of our neighbours for the foreseeable future. We shall in some way have broken through into a newly constructive period in our national life.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for putting down this Motion and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Richard on his maiden speech. We all know that he has had a distinguished career not only in the United Nations and in the European Community but also in another place. I served with him there and enjoyed debating this subject with him and many others, if not in the Chamber then in the Tea Room. I very much enjoyed his speech, although enjoyment does not necessarily indicate agreement, as he will know. The whole House enjoyed his speech and I congratulate him on it. I sincerely hope that we shall hear a great deal more from him in the future on this subject and on many others.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in opening his speech said that the Government and this country were marching out of step with Europe. I do not necessarily agree with that, even though it is a Tory Government. Which Europe did he mean? Is it the Europe of 12 nations, or was he talking about the Europe of 30 nations, many of which have only recently escaped from tyranny and fought to regain the sovereignty which some people now fear we are about to lose? Therefore, when we talk at>out Europe let us make sure that we are talking about the wider Europe and not the narrow Europe of 12 Western European states.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also made the point that the Prime Minister took a populist, nationalist approach to the Euro-elections last summer. The implication was that because she took that approach she lost the election. The noble Lord has been around long enough to know that that is not true. That election was lost because of the intolerable policies which the Prime Minister was imposing at home. The policy of under-funding the National Health Service, for example, was one of the major issues. I am certain that the reason for the Conservatives losing that election was far removed from the question of sovereignty.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins also sought to reassure the House and the country concerning the fear of federation which is threatened. He said, in effect, "Don't worry, chaps, all will be well. You are not going to have a federal United States of Europe". But I have heard it all before. Time and time again I have heard assurances that this would not happen or that would not happen. I remember reading the document which was issued by the Government at the time of the 1975 referendum as to whether we should remain within the European Community that

1411
the then Government had ensured through negotiations that there would not be economic and monetary union which would cause unemployment. Now it is on the agenda. So that assurance did not come to much, did it?
However, do not listen to what I say. Listen to what the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place had to say in its second report about the danger from creeping federalism. On page xvi of the report the committee says:
"We should not underestimate the continued strength of feeling and momentum for a move towards federal objectives. These may be long term goals, but they provide the context in which many are developing their thinking at present. There exists a high degree of consensus which, we believe, will grow. Emphases may change. There may be varying tactical shifts and differences of detail, but the old objective of a federal Europe is being reinforced at the highest official and political levels".
Noble Lords do not have to take it from me that federalism is very high on the agenda. They can take it from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in another place, which issued its report on 14th March.
Are we good Europeans or are we not? The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and others believe that we are not. We are always being criticised, whatever the government. The present Government are being criticised because Britain is not sufficiently communautaire. However, this country contributes a devil of a lot to the EC. It certainly contributes £2,000 million a year to its coffers. It is also a dumping ground for its manufactured goods, as is evidenced by the £13-4 billion trade deficit in manufactures last year. We also helped it out in invisibles, because last year we had a deficit in invisibles of £2-8 billion. If that were not enough, we also inflict upon ourselves higher food prices to the extent of £20 per week per family. So when it is said that we are not making any contribution or a sufficient contribution to the EC, those facts should be taken into account.
I hate having to do this, but I find myself having to defend the Prime Minister. She is accused of being shrill and of handbagging or sandbagging other European leaders. Is that not what a Prime Minister should do? Should she not stand up for the people she represents? I thought that that was what it was all about. That is why she is elected. The Prime Minister of this country is not elected to sit down and be handbagged or sandbagged by somebody else. The Prime Minister of this country is there to speak for this nation and to safeguard the interests of the people of this nation. Let us hear no more about that.
If anybody was sandbagged or handbagged at the last Dublin conference it was our Prime Minister when the Franco-German axis suddenly brought forward, with little notice, the question of political union. There are other points of view, and I hope that I shall be able to put some of them.
The situation in Europe is, as many noble Lords have noted, developing very quickly. Countries which have been in bondage for 40 or 50 years have suddenly decided that they want their freedom. We have been urging them to do that for years. What we must not now do is to frighten them by building
1412
in Western Europe a new superstate. If they see that there is a new superstate in Western Europe, perhaps with a central defence system, as was propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, who has just spoken, will that not frighten them off? Will they not be concerned that they will be put under threat or duress by that new powerful body in Western Europe of which a reunified and strong Germany is the centre? We should take those matters into account too.
We have heard a great deal about this country joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. It is thought, not only on the Conservative side but apparently now on my side of the House as well, that that will be a great panacea which will solve our problems. But it will not do so. The only way in which we can solve the deep economic problems of this country is by doing the right things in this country. No one else will do it for us. We have to do it. The suggestion that, by going into the ERM, interest rates and mortgage rates will suddenly come down and that nothing else will have to give is quite frankly a bit of economic illiteracy because it will not happen that way. We can succeed only if we have the economic will to succeed and to do those things in this country which are necessary.
I am sure that the Minister has the statistics. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, because he once took me to task when I dared to give those figures. The fact is that this country, which is outside the ERM, has since 1981 out-performed those countries which are within the ERM. The average rate of growth in Britain since 1981 has been 3-4 per cent. as against an average of 2-7 per cent. for the countries inside the ERM. Unemployment in this country is 5-6 per cent. as opposed to France's unemployment figure of 9-4 per cent. We are outside the ERM and the French are inside the ERM. As for inflation, apart from the past year, the British average and the European average of those people outside the ERM has been just as good as that of those inside the ERM, so the arguments are not all one way. Before we join the ERM, we should be sure that it will do us good rather than harm.
Like me, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mistrusts the short-termism of the City. However, at present the prime mover regarding our entry into the ERM is the City and we should therefore suspect its motives and be wary of its recommendations.
I am approaching the end of my time. I have a great deal more to say, but I just cannot say it. I do not believe that it is for us, now or at any time in the future, to enter into greater political union within Europe. We know that federalism will end a thousand years of great history. People say to me, "We must make progress". I heard one of those European MPs say on television last night, "We must make progress", but progress towards what? When a man is condemned to death, he proceeds from the condemned cell along the passage to the place of execution, but after that he is dead. That is progress too.
I am afraid that that is the kind of progress that would come about if we accepted the recommendations of those people who want greater

1413
political, monetary and economic union. I sincerely hope that this Government and any future government will resist those recommendations and insist that this country and this Parliament retain the sovereignty of the British people so that they and only they—not a group of foreign potentates—decide what is good for this nation and its people.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Jenkins, I believe that opposition in this country to our becoming a full member of what is now an incipient European Political Community is, as was evident from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, largely based on the fear that we should thereby inevitably become a mere state in some kind of federation closely resembling that of the United States. That fear, though widespread, is, in my view, groundless for the following reasons.
The American colonies which came together at the end of the 18th century already had many things in common; namely, language, religion, cultural background, history and, above all perhaps, a common system of law. They therefore found it possible to create a federation which featured a President with extensive powers; a Congress which also had certain agreed powers over the states; a federal army and navy recruited from all over the Union; and a federal police force. Many of the same features were present at the formation of other successful federations.
The situation on the mainland of Western Europe in 1945 was totally different from that of America in 1779. The states concerned had just emerged from a devasting war in which almost all had at some stage been totally defeated. The idea common to all was that it simply must not happen again and that the best way to prevent that was in some way to co-operate closely. However, they did not possess then, as we have noted, those features which resulted in federation in other parts of the world. That was to make efforts towards some kind of political unity much more difficult.
Let us see what happened. After a year or two of discussion which only resulted—thanks chiefly to our influence—in the creation of the Council of Europe, which had no supra-national powers at all, the first step towards unity came in May 1950 in the shape of the Coal and Steel Authority. Encouraged by its success, the federalists—those who looked towards something like the United States—put forward the Pleven Plan for a merger of the armed forces of France and Germany in the shape of the European Defence Community. However, that was rejected in 1954 by the French Assembly and it was the first victory of the nationalists.
Impressed by that, the Continentals began discussing after Suez, at first with our participation, an entirely new and genial project for economic union which resulted in the Treaty of Rome. That was obviously where we should have come in by persisting in, and not abandoning, the negotiations. The treaty did, of course, have certain supra-national features to which we strongly objected on
1414
nationalistic grounds. However, it was nothing like a United States of Europe on the American model.
In 1958 de Gaulle appeared to accept the treaty but after the Algerian settlement in 1964 he rejected its provisions for a qualified majority vote which resulted in the famous Luxembourg Compromise, the second major victory of the nationalists. That compromise, which we accepted when we joined in 1972, remained theoretically in force until 1986; in other words, the essential structure of the Community did not change throughout that period, in spite of the doubling of its members and some slight increase in the powers of the European Parliament.
But as the 1980s wore on, it became more and more evident that the complete abolition of all impediments to inter-Community trade which, largely on our insistence, had already been agreed should take place in 1992, would of itself necessitate some strengthening of the treaty. It is in fact difficult to see how an economic union of states with very different standards of living can operate if it is based purely on what would in effect be some sort of survival of the fittest.
The Single European Act was therefore negotiated and eventually accepted in 1987 by all the national parliaments, including our own. It did not go so far as many would have wanted but it provided for rather more decisions being taken by qualified majority vote, for rather more powers for the European Parliament and for some strengthening of the means of achieving a common foreign policy which might eventually—as my noble kinsman Lord Thomas suggested—even involve a common defence.
Very broadly speaking, that is where we now stand. Various things are obviously now on the horizon, including a common currency and a largely independent European central bank which, however, as a guess, could well be made dependent on some qualified vote in the Council of Ministers and on a large majority in the European Parliament. It is also possible—and, I should have thought, clearly desirable—that Brussels should increasingly be the centre of most Community activities. Certainly the European Parliament should be situated there and no doubt eventually the Council of Ministers, who, on the political side, might well have a small permanent staff.
Now there are those who say that all this is old and out-of-date thinking. We should now concentrate on creating a wider Europe, a "European House" which, according to some, must incorporate Russia or even the Soviet Union in close association with North America. But these are very vague, long-term considerations, dependent on the future of NATO and on what actually happens in the Soviet Union. Nor are they likely to achieve any reality unless there is a strong Western Europe, including Germany, speaking increasingly with one voice.
Here the essential point is that the existing structure of the Community will not change. There will be no President of Europe directing a European federal government dependent on the European Parliament. There will be no European ministry of foreign affairs or of defence, or indeed any European

1415
ministries at all. There will be no European foreign service, no European army or navy and not even a European CIA. Rightly or wrongly, the national feeling in all our ancient nation states is too strong to allow any such developments.
So I suggest that if the Community, without changing its essential structure, proceeds on its present projected path, there is no reason whatever for the inhabitants of this country, any more than those of the other member states, to feel that they are, as it were, being governed by foreigners in some rather alien administration. It is, rather, a welcome opportunity to take part in a great international venture of a completely novel type which will preserve the individual characteristics of members while enabling all collectively to play a significant part in world affairs.
This is all the more necessary in the present condition of the world. The collapse of communism and even possibly the Soviet Union, coupled with the prospective unification of Germany, make a united Western Europe all the more essential. The absorption of East Germany into the Community will naturally be difficult but, with all the wealth of Western Germany behind it, it will be possible. The prospect of a united Germany being a full and active member of the Community is even more important than formerly, in view of the fact that NATO—though it must go on—will clearly, given the collapse of Russia, be of much less significance.
The relations of the Community with the other European countries which have also recently abandoned communism will clearly be different. Certainly they, or at least three of them, are as "European" as we are. But nearly half a century under communism has made it impossible for them to change over quickly to a free market economy. There will be unemployment and many hardships and perhaps their present love affair with the West will suffer. As friendly associates, a common Community policy towards them is essential. But that can hardly come about unless Germany is a full member of the Community and the ministerial Council in Brussels and thus does not, or cannot, pursue an independent policy.
One would have thought that at this critical moment Her Majesty's Government would be in the forefront of those who favour greater political European unity. It is not only a question of our joining the European Monetary System, which seems already to be imminent. It is our general attitude toward any proposal for greater unity, whether economic or political, that is so deplorable. Some proposals, such as the Delors plan, may be criticised, but the necessity of progress in principle must surely be acknowledged.
For instance, what is the point, among other things, of totally rejecting a social charter which in principle is accepted by all other Community Members; of refusing some additional powers of co-decision to a European Parliament which, if the Community is to have any supra-national characteristics, must play an essential part; of rejecting the views on this point even of the Tory Members of the European Parliament; of declining
1416
to agree to its election by proportional representation, which alone might make it fully representative of European public opinion; of effectively preventing MEPs from even entering the Palace of Westminster; and finally, being obviously suspicious of any proposal for increasing political unity, which alone, according to many experts, is more likely than anything else to bind the reunited Germany to the Western world?
There are rumours that these views are not altogether shared by some Members of the Cabinet. But it is pretty certain that they are those at present held by an embattled Britannia in Downing Street, conscious of considerable nationalistic support, brandishing her trident at the misguided federalists on the other side of the Channel, no longer ruling the waves but intent, so far as concerns the Single European Act, at least on waiving the rules! Britannia's attitude must surely change if Britain is not to find herself marginalised in the vital conference at the end of the year. Happily, some reliable political prophets are predicting that it will change. The forward-looking speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, this afternoon encourages us to hope so.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I venture to intervene in this important and interesting debate for the reason that your Lordships may have gathered from the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I have been appointed chairman of a committee formed by the European Communities Select Committee to consider these matters. I shall say a few words on the debate and then quite shortly I should like to tell your Lordships about that sub-committee.
I regard the debate as of enormous value. Like all your Lordships, I am greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for starting it off I am also indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his speech. I join in welcoming him for a number of reasons. Since I first heard him speak (I believe in another place) I have enjoyed listening to his voice; and I liked hearing it again.
I agree with him that the debate is timely: it will help to make these problems more understandable. I most strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said at the start of the debate, that there has been persistent misunderstanding. To have a debate in this House during which not only the former President of the Commission but three other former commissioners, two ambassadors, a Minister and one or two former ministers speak is of enormous value.
However, there can be misunderstandings. I most humbly suggest to your Lordships that that was proved by the robust speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He said "I have heard it all before". If I may say so to the noble Lord, so have we.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: And we shall hear it again.
Lord Aldington: We shall hear it again. The noble Lord made a new point about the fear of the new Eastern European countries that they would shrink away from the European Community because of the proposals that he put into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. It seems to me much more likely that, as the Eastern Europeans look at the Community, they will see a most successful community of nations. They will see a community whose economic growth, trade and happiness have improved, a community which stands free, with sovereign member states uniting together in their common purposes. I wish the Community to develop that aspect further so that it can be of value to the Eastern European countries as it has been of value to the EFTA countries whose main trading partner it is.
I have had the honour to chair an inquiry into relations between the Community and EFTA. Noble Lords will see the report in two days' time. Why is EFTA interested in the Community? It is because of the success of the Community. Why are the Eastern European countries looking to the Community? It is because of its success.
I return to the theme of misunderstanding. The Motion refers to a more precise shape for future European political and monetary union. There is nothing new about those aims. They have been there for a long time, as the noble Lord said at the outset of our debate. The arguments—there are arguments, and they will continue—are about what those words mean. What are the aims? What do those words entail? What steps should be taken towards their achievement? What institutional implications are there?
I give an example. Noble Lords will have found difficulty over the past few years in understanding what is meant by the proponents of monetary union and by the Government when they talk about monetary union. It is quite clear that they do not mean the same thing. There appeared to be a new definition of monetary union in the mind of my noble friend when he gave his very interesting and positive speech. I applaud the call for our Government to take an active role in seeking to define the more precise shape for those proposals. I am very glad that they welcome those words in the Motion. I know that the Government have taken a positive stance on the implementation of European legislation, directives and policies. However, I very much hope that they will continue to take a positive attitude to the proposals for the future.
I read with great pleasure the positive speech by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in Paris at the end of April. As has been said, much that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said today was positive. However, I share the views of some about the danger that we may be forced to dance to someone else's tune because our tune is not being played. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the Motion today.
What is the best way to sort out misunderstandings? Debates such as this help. But your Lordships' House has developed a very good means of securing a little more clarity on issues that trouble our nation. Many of us have been members
1418
of Select Committees on various subjects. As a new member of the European Communities Select Committee, perhaps I may say that under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, it has played an enormous part in informing your Lordships and informing public debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, preceded me as chairman of sub-committee A. The role that he has had as chairman of that committee over the past five years on many very difficult economic, financial and trade subjects has been of enormous value both to this House and to the understanding of the problems within the nation.
I welcome the idea of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, that an ad hoc committee should be set up to consider the proposals for economic and monetary union and for political union. They appear to be related in time and on the accountability issue. The sub-committee's terms of reference, which were read out by the Leader of the Opposition, are:
"to consider the implications for the United Kingdom and the European Community of proposals for economic and monetary union and for political union with special reference to the institutional changes which might be involved"
The inquiry will benefit from work done by the Select Committee in previous years. We should have in mind two notable reports; first, that published in 1985 on European union and, secondly, that published in 1989 by the committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, on the Delors Committee report. Many other reports are also of value to us.
The membership of sub-committee A is only 12. We have recently undertaken the EFTA report and are now carrying out another inquiry. However, the membership of the new ad hoc sub-committee will total 20, drawn from all sides of the House. It will have as its members some of your Lordships who have special experience of the matters into which we are looking. We hope to be well equipped to listen to evidence which we shall be taking from next week on. We shall sit fairly intensively until the end of July, expect to deliberate in October and report in November. I am sure that my colleagues share my view that we shall draw strength and understanding from debates such as this. Indeed, I hope that this will not be the last debate on these issues before we come to deliberate.
The work of the Select Committee and its sub-committees is an excellent example of the way in which national parliaments can play a part in the general accountability process of the Commission, the Council and the European concept. As a result of the steps taken by our predecessors, we in this House have set an example. When talking to Members of the European Parliament, which we visited two weeks ago, I found that we are well understood and respected. During my visit to Strasbourg I learned for the first time how that Parliament works. I gained an understanding of the importance and value of its work and of the high quality of our Members of that Parliament.
We in the Select Committee have a relationship with those Members. We call for evidence and co-operation from them when carrying out our inquiries. I am glad to know that the other place is

1419
taking steps to afford Members of the European Parliament higher status in their affairs. The House has heard from my noble friend Lady Elles, and your Lordships know of the high quality in everything that she does. Our country as a whole does not understand how well we are served by our representatives in the European Parliament.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at the outset, perhaps I may, as a new boy, congratulate my noble friend Lord Richard. He is a friend in every sense of the word and I was delighted to sit next to him this afternoon and hear his remarkable maiden speech. I congratulate too the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins upon initiating the debate on this important issue. Like him, I suppose that I should enter into a confessional, which is a term of art when it comes to European Community affairs, but somewhat different from the confession that he made. I readily confess that my views have drifted apart from those of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. They are based on my experience before I became a commissioner and on that gained during the four years that I held the office. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, on his important appointment. I am sure that the House recognises that he will shoulder his burdens with the skill and sincerity for which he is so respected in this House and elsewhere.
Like other noble Lords I agree that this is a timely debate. It takes place against the backcloth of the seismic changes that have occurred in Eastern Europe. Those changes clearly challenge so many of the assumptions on which out post-war policies were built. The debate enables us to reflect on the kind of Community that we wish to see constructed and on the pace of that construction. It also provides us with the opportunity to consider, albeit briefly, the recommendations of the second report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the operation of the Single European Act and the Government's response to it. I am bound to say that I found that feeble and unconvincing.
Against that backcloth the advice of the Government appears to be to go slow on European Community integration. Some say "Let us wait for the new burgeoning democracies of Eastern Europe to be able to clamber on board the Community". I believe that that is profoundly bad advice, but I shall return to the point later. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in saying that the Government also appear to say, "Let us ignore some of the objectives, even some of the legal duties, that have been prescribed by the Single European Act".
That appears to be the message that was preached by the Prime Minister even before the recent events which took place in Eastern Europe. But it is a message that is essentially rejected by other members states. They believe that it is vital that we should continue to strengthen the existing Community, make it more efficient, more democratic, more accountable, and more cohesive, so that it can offer a vision of greater prosperity and a sense of greater community to the peoples of Eastern Europe who
1420
look to the Community as the main architect for planning the European structures of the future. I cannot believe that they would wish to see a Community enfeebled by delay as we simply wait on events.
Therefore, while other member states call for progress on political union, currency union, the implementation of the concepts envisioned by the social charter, progress on environmental policies built upon the principles of the new chapter in the Single European Act, the Government essentially stand apart—ever the awkward partner. I regret some of the arguments which the Prime Minister has relied on from time to time in order to justify that stance. I believe that not only do those arguments trivialise the important issues that we face but they cause great offence to people in the institutions of Europe because they are trivial and because they are wrong.
I wish to exemplify what I mean. Recently the Prime Minister even invoked the monarchy: the monarchy might be threatened by the developments which are happening in the European Community. There she is standing firm to protect the monarchy. It seems to have escaped her notice that five other member states have monarchies. I have seen no evidence—not a scintilla of evidence—to suggest that any of them has a desire to abolish its royal family. She says that what is happening today is a movement towards an indentikit Europe. That is not a view which is shared by other members of the Community. They see their contribution as an important part of sharing responsibilities and creating a new sense of sovereignty for the Community itself.
Then there are the pejorative descriptions affecting the socal charter; for example, the suggestion that it was born out of neo-Marxist ideas. Anybody having a brief look at the social charter, whatever criticisms one may make of it, would find that a rather inexplicable and absurd view to take. Indeed, it is deeply insulting to those Right-wing leaders of governments in Europe who have embraced the concept of the social charter.
Of course, it ignores the fact that the changes to come out of the establishment of the internal market will not be secured—and they are important changes which can enrich the Community—if progress is not made on issues like equal pay; the right to permanent training and equal treatment for all workers, especially women; protecting the interests of workers in their workplace; and indeed, the participation of the workforce in decisions which affect its members' working life.
Perhaps I may quote the words of the president of the Community, Jacques Delors, who said:
"This Europe also needs clear rules and respect for the law. While we are trying to pool our efforts, it would be unacceptable for unfair practices to distort the interplay of economic forces. It would be unacceptable for Europe to become a source of social regression, while we are trying to rediscover together the road to prosperity and employment".
I do not believe that it is right that Mrs. Thatcher really fears a federalist Europe. I believe she fears a socially progressive Europe. In my view, it is not that she fears that Britain will be run by the Brussels

1421
bureaucracy but rather that Britain and the Community will not be run according to her precepts, which I readily acknowledge she holds very sincerely.
However, for the Prime Minister, the internal market concept was originally envisaged as an exercise in a massive European-wide deregulation while, for others in the Community, it is potentially an exercise in social solidarity. For her, it is to be a common market and for them—and I use the words of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn—it is to be a European Community in the full sense of that term.
Yesterday I noticed that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Ridley had decided to intervene in the debate. I worry about many of his interventions and sometimes I worry also about his non-interventions. I wonder whether some of his words might embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, because, according to the Financial Times, he said that:
"governments could opt out of EC arrangements, depending on national instincts or economic circumstances".
He suggested that:
"there could be regional groupings within the overall union within which France and Germany could form a closer alliance if they wished".
That is a view which I think is profoundly dangerous.
What are we to make of that intervention? Is it the obiter dictum of yet another semi-detached Minister or is it the view of the Government? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that issue at the end of the debate. However, in my judgment, that view—that we should have a two-speed Europe—is not only dangerous for the Community but is profoundly dangerous for this country.
Regrettably, in the main, my submission is that the Government's response to the foreign affairs committee's report corroborates Mr. Ridley's approach. There is not a word about the significance of the new chapter on the environment in the Single European Act. There is not a word about the provisions on social policy which impose legal obligations on the Commission to promote proposals for the upward harmonisation of working conditions and also to promote the concept of maximising consensus.
It is a remarkable case of selective amnesia, because, after all, the Government subscribed to the whole of the Single European Act. When the Prime Minister attended a NATO summit not very long ago, I recall that she complained that some member states were reneging on that to which they had subscribed their names. She said:
"When you sign up to something, you sign up, you sign up!"
What about the Single European Act?
What of accountability? That is the essence of greater democracy in the Community. It is precisely so as to confront the fear, real or imagined, that civil servants rather than elected politicians will take decisions that we must tackle this question of the democratic deficit. That is why I believe that we need to consider urgently whether majority voting should become a routine procedure in the Council of Ministers, not confining the issue simply to matters affecting the internal market. The secrecy
1422
surrounding decision making within the Council of Ministers needs to be carefully eliminated.
I believe with (he noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, that the European Parliament must be taken seriously and, therefore, that the powers of the only elected body in the constellation of Community institutions—the European Parliament—need to be enhanced. I say that not because I believe that there is any question of replacing the powers of national parliaments but because it is necessary to complement them. I believe also that the European Commission should be elected by the European Parliament from candidates who are proposed by the Council of Ministers. There are many other changes which I should like to see as regards the powers of the parliament, particularly on initiating legislation.
However, when it comes to the question of accountability, it is somewhat ironic that the Government have made some very interesting observations at paragraph 17. They say that agreed legislation should be implemented and enforced. My only wish is that they had done that rather more readily in relation to certain directives affecting the environment on which we read the other day in our newspapers that they have engaged in a calculated attempt to frustrate laws for which they themselves have been responsible.
I believe passionately in getting ahead with Europe, in building it safely and in making sure that it can be an example to those developing democracies of Eastern Europe. I believe that it is important that we should sustain our own democratic rights. I can think of no better way of doing that than enshrining the European Convention of Human Rights in the Community treaties.
About most of those vitally important issues, save for the question of ensuring that the European Court should have greater powers—and I totally agree with the Government about that—the Government are silent. A French writer once said that history does not allow us to abstain. My only wish is that the Government, for the short time which they have left to them, should follow that dictum.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords;, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to have listened to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. However, I am conscious that I am the fourth former member of the European Commission to address the House in this debate, and although kindly remarks have been made about us, I fear that I may be beginning to strain the general tolerance of the House.
I wish to confirm myself to one general point and one more specific point about the so-called principle of subsidiarity. We are all very much aware in holding this debate that we have the privilege of living in momentous historic times. As the Soviet bloc is breaking up into its national and nationalist units, within the European Community we are moving towards greater integration, both economic and political.

1423
I believe that the movement within the European Community is irreversible. I also believe that, if anything, it is bound to be speeded up by events in Eastern and Central Europe. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who is no longer in his place, that there is no question of creating a Western European superstate. By far the best way in which we in Western Europe can make a contribution, and perhaps restore some of our former influence in affairs, towards East and Central Europe, where there are going to be times of great difficulty, is by creating the maximum unity among ourselves.
The European Community at the moment is led principally by France and Germany. Indeed, since it was the Franco-German quarrel, which cost Europe so much blood, and its reconciliation which lie at the heart of the European Community, that is only proper. However, over a number of years it has been unfortunate that the United Kingdom has not felt able to play its full and proper role alongside France and Germany in the leadership of the European Community. That is bad both for Europe's sake and for Britain's.
When I was in the European Commission, a wise old Dutchman said to me during the very early days of British membership, "There are two nations within the European Community which make great difficulties for the rest of us by looking after their national interests within the Community. One is France and the other now is the United Kingdom". He went on to say, "There is, however, a difference in the way they play their hands. In France's case, if France is looking after what she regards as a major national interest, she is inclined to say 'Anybody who disagrees with us is betraying the future construction of Europe'. In the British case, when you are looking after your interests you are inclined to say, 'This is the rest of Europe putting us at a disadvantage'".
Those were wise remarks, made perhaps some 15 years ago, and, sadly, I think they have remained true almost until today. I say "almost" because, like other Members of your Lordships' House, we were impressed by much of what the Minister said. Perhaps we can take it as a sign that there is going to be a more positive contribution from the British Government to the developments now taking place within the European Community. As has been said by other speakers, we are inclined in the United Kingdom to distrust the Cartesian grand design that is part of the intellectual make-up of the mainland of Europe. We are supposed here, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins said, to be apostles of empiricism and pragmatism.
I am getting into my anecdotage, but I remember perhaps one of the greatest of our diplomats who helped to bring Britain into the European Community, the late Sir Con O'Neill, telling me as I set off for Brussels: "In Brussels you are going to learn lessons in pragmatism you never dreamt of in the Fabian Society". That is one of the things we sometimes fail to realise about the real nature of the way the European Community works. The way forward to economic, monetary and political union.
1424
of necessity, will be a pragmatic one: it will be a gradualist way forward and a step-by-step one.
What is tremendously important for us to realise is that for a group of ancient member states such as we have in the European Community to make the great changes that are involved in economic, monetary and political union, it is necessary for us to have a vision of the goal ahead in order to have the necessary commitment to tackle the difficult empirical steps to reach that goal.
My second point is that the more progress is made towards greater economic and political unity in the Community, the more important will become this so-called principle of subsidiarity. It is one of the more ghastly Community jargon words, which is perhaps comparable with the word "additionality", used in my day. I take it to mean the principle that you should not seek to do at Community level what is better done at national level. There is a corollary to the principle that governments who enunciate it sometimes forget: it is also better to do at the regional or local level—or sometimes not to do at all—something which it is sought to do at the national level. I think that the Government are sometimes guilty of interpreting the principle of subsidiarity in that rather limited way.
However, I have some sympathy with the Government's view about this. It is true that the European Commission and the European Parliament are sometimes both tempted to seek to harmonise national habits in areas which are best left alone. We can all feel some sympathy for the Members of the European Parliament. They are all keen to make the contribution to the building of a European Community, and I think they sometimes find it a frustrating business to make progress. Sometimes they seem to promote matters that involve expenditure without having the direct responsibility for raising the necessary taxation to meet that expenditure.
Just as the historic principle of no taxation without representation is a sound one, I think it is probably equally true to say that the rights of representation without the responsiblities for taxation have their dangers. Therefore I support what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was saying about the need to have in mind moving forward towards giving the European Parliament some tax-rasising powers of its own.
The main point that I want to make to the Government is that in enunciating the principle of subsidiarity, which I believe will become more and more important as the move towards integration goes forward, it is important that it should not be used as a protectionist device, rather as the French are doing at present over the import of British beef, to resist (as my noble friend has just said) the very necessary and widely supported Community progress towards a Community social policy or towards an environmental policy. The Government should not declare that things cannot take place at Community level because the institutions are not yet sufficiently accountable.
The wise reaction to that situation is to seek with positive enthusiasm ways and means of making the institutions more accountable. The truth is, as my

1425
noble friend Lord Ezra said, that national sovereignty in some of its most important aspects is rather a myth these days. It has either been pooled or eroded by the realities of modern international life. We have pooled our sovereignty over the most crucial aspect—national defence—in a way which makes it difficult to argue that democratic accountability had been fully met before we took that very necessary step.
Equally of course, the present monetary situation in Europe and in the international community as a whole means that another crucial aspect of sovereignty is deeply eroded. Therefore the question is how one can organise things so as to share sovereignty sensibly. I think it is that question which we should approach in the most positive manner possible.
I do not fully understand the fears expressed about the dangers to national identity involved in moving forward at the fastest practicable pace towards greater integration. If I may say so to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, there is no question of even seeking to create in the European Community any kind of single state. We in the United Kingdom have for 250 years had an economic, monetary union and political union; but I have not noticed that as a result my noble friend has become noticeably less Welsh or that I for my part have become noticeably less Scottish. The national identity argument is very much a red herring. What we want—it is in the best interests of all of us—is to make a success, and to have a major British contribution towards making a success, of the present welcome movement forward of the European Community.
The Minister said that the Government want a strong Community. We were all glad to hear him say that so very clearly. The best way to obtain a strong Community is for the British Government to show a positive enthusiasm for seeking that goal and then to join in shaping the historic changes that lie ahead which will affect us as they will every other nation in Western Europe.
6.50 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I am always glad to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, speaking about greater economic and political integration in Europe. I was also glad to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I was on the Budget Committee in the 1970s and I listened to him then with great interest. He made a most interesting and entertaining maiden speech today. I think we can assure him that it was not too controversial. I am also always glad to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. We are all old friends. We may not be old friends in the parliamentary sense, as those I have mentioned seem largely to be on the other side of the House, but nevertheless they are old friends; as indeed is my noble friend Lady Elles on this side of the House.
I am pleased to note the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to and progress on the completion of at least Stage 1 of the Delors proposals as well as the single market. I cannot emphasise too much how important I believe it is that we should
1426
achieve exchange rate stability for our exporters and, as my noble friend Lady Elles said, our tourists.
I look forward to the inter-governmental conference on economic and monetary union which is due to take place at the end of this year. I hope that it will be followed by a second conference to discuss political union. I greatly welcomed the stirring speech of my noble friend Lord Aldington on that subject. I am glad to hear that he is chairman of this ad hoc committee. We look forward with the greatest of interest to reading its report.
In regard to monetary union—the famous EMU—which should follow Britain's adoption of the exchange rate mechanism, I am inclined to endorse the views of the European Commission and particularly those of our former commissioner, my noble friend Lord Cockfield. Moreover, if we adopt wider use of the European currency unit—the ecu; and I certainly support the Government's initiative in issuing ecu-denominated Treasury bills—this would, I believe, be a considerable money saver. I think many of my noble friends, as well as several noble Lords opposite, agree with me in that respect. It is to be hoped that Britain will join the exchange rate mechanism later this year.
I do not consider that the possible loss of sovereignty by being full members of the European monetary system should worry us unduly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in that regard. If we had been full members of the ERM earlier it would have been advantageous to this country both in regard to inflation and interest rates. I should certainly not oppose a closer relationship between sterling and the deutschmark; nor, indeed, to the establishment of a European banking system of central banks—not just one central European bank but the system as it has been enunciated. As I said, in regard to sovereignty our present membership of the EC has meant that we have lost some sovereignty. That also applies, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, to our membership of NATO and even the United Nations and its various agencies; and especially to the IMF, to say nothing of some other international organisations.
I should like to say at this point that, apart from possibly the delaying stance of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on becoming full members of the European monetary system, I agree very much indeed with her policies in other spheres. In Europe she is certainly a strong advocate of the single European market, which comes into effect in 1992, and of complying with EC directives, in which Britain leads the other 11 member states. My noble friend Lady Elles made a good related point on that.
The Government have made it clear that Britain will join the ERM when our level of inflation is considerably lower, when there is more freedom of capital and financial services in the Community and when more progress has been made on the completion of the single market. Though considerable progress has been made, not all the conditions have been met. There is no question of that and I defend the Government, but we cannot delay indefinitely. Untimately we must carry European integration forward into a permanent political, economic and monetary association.

1427
General de Gaulle was, and M. Mitterrand is, an Anglophile and would not wish Britain to withdraw from the Community. The French want Britain as a part of Europe and are glad that she supports the single European market. Perhaps because of being half French I am not unsympathetic to the views of M. Delors, President of the European Commission, or of President Mitterrand, whom I knew when I was in the British embassy in Paris after the Second World War. Both, I think, seek greater European political and economic union which might ultimately lead to at least a kind of loose confederation. I know that some people in Britain do not favour any kind of European federation. I wonder whether we could not have a similar confederation as that in Canada, though much more complicated. M. Rocard, the French Prime Minister, has spoken about building one European nation and there is no doubt that many French people would like to see France as leader of a European super-puissance and not leave it mainly to a unified Germany to play that role.
Now that following the Ottawa summit the two Germanics and four wartime allies have agreed the principle of German unification, the pace of change may well be swifter than could have been foreseen only a few years ago. In my view the main concerns over German unification are the guaranteeing of the Polish-German border—namely, the acceptance of the Oder-Neisse line—and the sensitivities and interests of other European states, as well as whether a unified Germany should be a member perhaps both of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It will be interesting to hear the results of the present Warsaw Pact meeting which is starting today.
Like some in the White House in Washington (I have recently been in America) I find this latter concept of a unified Germany being a member of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact somewhat difficult to contemplate, certainly at present. Yet I do not believe that a unified Germany will prove a threat to the West. However, as I have said, we must wait and see what results from the present Warsaw Pact meeting.
Nonetheless, I would rather see a CSCE—a conference on security and co-operation in Europe—as the basis for a new pan-European structure. As I said recently in my address to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, there are various alternatives. First, there is the EC, which came into being in Rome in 1957. There is also the Council of Europe, which was born considerably earlier in Strasbourg in 1949. As we know, the EC has 12 member states, while the Council of Europe, which meets, like the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, is a 23-nation body.
The Council of Europe, though perhaps best known for its work on human rights and broadcasting standards, now sees an opportunity to expand its role. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Elles mentioned that. We must also not forget, as some of your Lordships have mentioned, other organisations such as the European Court of Justice and the European Investment Bank, to say nothing of the other European agencies concerned with space
1428
and the environment. All these organisations are playing useful roles.
The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe started in Helsinki in 1972. In Ottawa recently my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke of using the CSCE as a launch-pad for a new secretariat to arbitrate on likely new problems of borders and minorities. I understand that the Council of Europe is somewhat sniffy, if there is such a word, about the 35-nation CSCE, which includes the United States of America and Canada.
I believe that the Council of Europe thinks that it would not be the correct basis for creating a kind of confederation of European states. How well I remember Coudenhove Kalergi's thoughts on European union before the Second World War and Winston Churchill's advocacy of it at the end of the war. If the pan-European movement had taken off in the 1930s, we might well have avoided the horrors of the Second World War. NATO came into being in 1949. I think that it is also sceptical of the CSCE. All these alternatives must be considered.
Some are touting NATO as an all-embracing European body. The new Secretary-General of NATO, Herr Manfred Woerner, certainly seems set, as some of us were in the past, on implementing Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty concerned with its non-military role. I think that Herr Woerner has had meetings with the Czech Foreign Minister about this and he is visiting the USSR.
I presided over the Soviet Ambassador in London about a week ago. I was interested to hear him say that Mr. Gorbachev is seriously contemplating a confederation or a kind of commonwealth of nations of the 15 Soviet republics. Some Eastern, or perhaps I should say Central, European countries might also join the WEU or EFTA, which is the European Free Trade Association that started in Stockholm in 1960. I think that these are organisations of the past. However, as we know, an international body seldom disappears altogether.
1 believe that these various alternatives should be borne in mind. I shall be interested to know what my noble friend Lord Brabazon thinks of the alternatives and which Western European grouping or groupings he thinks it would be appropriate for democratic Eastern European states to join in the first place.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said about Austria. I imagine that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble friend Lord Brabazon must be exploring these various possibilities. I shall be interested to know their preliminary views. With Eastern Europe in such a state of flux it must be difficult to conceive when it will be possible to negotiate the entry of the Eastern European countries into any one of these organisations.
At all events, I hope that an enlarged democratic Europe will become united. What with America's budget deficit and vast trade deficit as well as many other problems—the disastrous failure of perestroika in the USSR and the decline and possible disintegration of the Soviet empire—it seems that a larger united Europe of, say, 500 million people

1429
could well become world leader in partnership with the United States of America and Canada in the next century.
As the newly re-elected President of the European-Atlantic Group, it is a solution on these lines that I would like to see.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Richard on his maiden speech and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on introducing this debate, I cannot help remarking that the speech of the Minister was very much more precise in detail than the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, rightly mentioned the fact that this year negotiations are going forward for a combined economic zone between the EFTA countries—which are Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria and Switzerland—and the EC. The essence of that agreement would be that the EFTA countries would accept the genuine commercial rules of the 1992 so-called single market but that they would not have to swallow the protectionist common agricultural policy or the legislative rigidities imposed from Brussels on EC members at the present time.
That is not merely an arrangement which would have suited the United Kingdom ideally, had we had had the sense and patience to wait for it, but it might well suit some of the independent East European countries which may not like the protectionism and expense of the CAP. Having newly escaped the intrusion of Moscow into their internal affairs they may wish not to substitute for that any similar intrusion from Brussels. Indeed, a larger and looser economic zone has real attractions for many people in many parts of Europe.
It is paradoxical, when this spirit of independence and liberation is spreading so vigorously in central and Eastern Europe, that Brussels should still be hankering after further centralism and the imposition of even more hard and fast rules from the centre which it describes under the vague name of "union". How is it that this outdated centralism still survives? Perhaps like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, I too may indulge in an anecdote. I well remember hearing the message expounded by M. Monnet in a three-hour private conversation in 1952 and again in 1962. That message, which he preached with such extraordinary fervour and persistence for 30 or so years, was in essence threefold. First, the great objective for all of us was the prevention of another war between France and Germany. Secondly, this could be achieved only by tying down a possibly resurgent Germany in a firm political and legislative group of some kind. Thirdly, the required union could be achieved only by a series of nominally functional and economic agreements which would conceal the real objective of loss of national independence. This point was referred to earlier this afternoon. It is fully understandable that M. Monnet, with his Alsace-Lorraine background, should have made these assumptions in 1945 and the years immediately afterwards, but they are in my view largely out of date and no longer valid today.
1430
First, the hard fact is that nothing has been more improbable in post-1945 Europe than a new Franco-German war, and nothing is more improbable today. Secondly, now that we are faced with a Germany of 80 million people and the strongest economy in Europe, so far from the EC tying down the Germany of the future, it is far more likely, and perhaps inevitable, that Germany will increasingly tie down the rest of the EC. Thirdly, the attempt to impose political centralisation by stealth has not merely involved what amounts to deception of the ordinary electorate of this and other countries, who, after all, also have a right to self-determination, but has led to a series of economic measures—from the CAP to the EMS—whose aim was not really economic at all.
One example was the Single European Act. Its actual effect was to transfer more power to Brussels. It is doubtful whether it will have any great economic effect. The latest example is the EMS and the propaganda about the single currency. Again, the motive behind this is not economic policy but the obsession with centralising more power in Brussels or, in some people's minds, even in some EC central bank.
From the point of view of economic policy, for the United Kingdom, with an over-valued currency, a weak economy caused by the mistakes of the 1970s and a large overseas payments deficit, to adopt a fixed over-valued exchange rate would be to ignore most of the lessons of the past 60 years in this sphere of policy. As a country we have thrown away the power to control imports, capital exports, the level of incomes and government purchases. No way is left to cure a payments deficit in the short or even medium term except by letting the exchange rate move to its natural level. To throw that power away, as some people lightheartedly seem disposed to do without following the argument, is to condemn the British economy to both chronic payments deficit and, probably, rising unemployment. We are asked to do all this in the name of what is described, in yet another attempt to confuse the electorate, as some undisclosed form of political union.
Those who advocate this—in this respect I agree with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, although not with his speech—should say precisely what they mean. The noble Lord should define his policies as clearly as the Minister did. Of course we all agree that this country should be active and wholehearted in genuine international organisations. But, if it is suggested—this is the crux of the matter—that the realities of self-government and national independence, the power of legislation, taxation and control of economic and defence policy should be taken out of the hands of the British electorate and handed over to someone else, we are faced with an entirely different proposition. Then there would be at stake not just the rights of Parliament but the rights of the electorate. It is not just a question of the legal conception of sovereignty but the reality of self-government and self-determination which we are all so busy recommending to Lithuania, Latvia, Namibia, South Africa and many other countries.

1431
I imagine that no one in this Chamber or in another place would like to see a world in which Britain had ceased to be an independent self-governing country and presumably no longer a member of the United Nations while all manner of other countries which I need not now retail remained independent and members of the United Nations. But, if that is so, the time has come for people to say so fairly explicitly and fairly audibly. In the words of the Motion, they should define in a more precise shape what they mean and how far they would go or not go.
One thing is certain. Neither government nor Parliament has the right to deprive the British electorate of these fundamental powers without the explicit consent of the voters themselves. It is rather remarkable that in this fairly long debate no one has mentioned the British electorate; yet we are talking virtually about altering the British constitution. In that connection it is worth remembering some of the promises and assurances that were given when decisions were taken about this matter both by Parliament and by the electorate in the 1970s.
When the House of Commons first voted on EC entry in 1971 it was given the following promise by Mr. Heath's White Paper of that year. It stated:
"There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty".
In the referendum of 1975 the electorate voted on the basis of the following assurance from the Labour Government's pamphlet distributed to all voters. It stated that in Brussels,
"the Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or new tax if he considers it to be against British interests".
It went on to state:
"The movement in the Common Market towards economic and monetary union … could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed".
The pamplet from the organisation of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and others, of which I think he was the chairman, which argued on the "yes" side of the referendum said that, in the Community:
"All decisions of any importance must be agreed by every member".
Those are the solemn assurances upon which the country voted in 1975.1 do not think that we should just cynically cast them aside or dishonour them, particularly when most of us are preaching self-determination and democracy to the rest of the world. The British electorate has not voted that Britain should cease to be an independent, self-governing country. Therefore, whatever our personal views may be, neither the Government nor Parliament has any right to give away any more realities of independence without the specific and explicit consent of the electorate.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it is difficult to try to sum up the whole range of opinions expressed in this debate. I shall certainly not try to do so. It is especially difficult as I am following the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who expressed a view which is certainly
1432
at variance with that of the majority of those who have spoken. He expressed his view with characteristic clarity and honesty. It seems to me that the arguments he made show that there is, as it were, a flat disagreement between the point of view which he holds and that which I and other noble Lords have expressed during the course of the debate. I think that I am right in saying that he hankers after, as other people do, a free trade area rather than a European Community, which has and always has had profound political implications.
I disagree with the noble Lord in his view that the electorate of this country has been deceived by M. Monnet or that he ever concealed that he saw his strategy of a functional approach through economic measures to a political end as one which it was right to pursue in the circumstances in which he found himself. I do not think that we would ever have denied that fact. I do not think that anyone who was interested in the European Coal and Steel Community or the European movement at that time was in any doubt about the situation.
However, the noble Lord has a point that the question of sovereignty was in some respects fudged. In this connection I must point out that the old Liberal Party, which was the first party to propose that we should join the European Community, never fudged the issue. It always made it absolutely clear that a substantial loss of sovereignty was involved in any such change in the status of this country. But I think that the noble Lord has returned to an issue which has run through the whole of our debate this afternoon. Our debate has been returning again and again to the question of sovereignty, about which there has been, in the words of my noble friend Lord Jenkins, persistent misunderstandings. The issue has also given rise to psychological difficulties. When people say that we must change our attitude, one of the attitudes which I think we should change is our attitude toward sovereignty.
When I was preparing my speech for the debate I thought that the best description of the situation in which we now find ourselves was expressed by Sir Ralph Dahrendorf in his Brandon Rhys Williams Memorial Lecture. He came to four conclusions. The first was that in the absence of a world order it was important to create a zone of stability in Europe, not merely because of economic and monetary reasons or for trade reasons, but also for more general political reasons.
Given the events which are occurring and those which have occurred in Eastern and Central Europe and in Russia, the need for a zone of stability in Western Europe is self-evident. In addition, because of the absence of a world order, Sir Ralph Dahrendorf said:
"We therefore need an optimum of European co-operation in areas of policy in which sovereignty has long left national shores and borders".
The central point which so many people refuse to accept is that national sovereignty has already slipped through the fingers of national government. He continued:
"Europe 1992 is a step in the right direction, especially if it remains open for the wider European Economic Space and for post-communist Europe.

1433
But the 1992 project must be followed by a deepening of the institutions.
The third point Sir Ralph made in conclusion was that economic and monetary union involves a real loss of sovereignty. He said that if we had, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, suggested we might have, defence co-operation—a common European defence policy and a common European foreign policy—that would mean a further overt loss of sovereignty. But as he pointed out, and as I have already said, sovereignty is already losing its relevance in any case. As my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked, who controls the flow of capital in the world today? What exactly is national defence in the nuclear world? What sovereign decision-maker controls the environment?
Finally, Sir Ralph Dahrendorf concluded that:
"the choices before modern countries in this condition are stark and simple. They can either remain bystanders, at or beyond the fringe of the new centres of gravity, in which case they will become satellites, or in the worst case, forgotten islands of decline, or they can be active participants in the attempt to shape, with others, the institutions of the future".
It seems to me that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was saying. In other words, in order to control our destiny we had better play a full part as active participants in the work of the European Commission. That is the conclusion I have drawn. It is through our commitment to the European Community that we can best influence our destiny.
In point of fact we are committed to Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said in his promising but not patronising speech. When I say "promising" I mean promising in that it seemed to me to indicate a change of attitude. As he reiterated, we are committed to Europe by our signature to the Treaty of Rome and by the passage of the Single European Act. However, what we have failed to do—and this is apparent from a whole series of speeches by noble Lords—is to commit ourselves with any appearance of enthusiasm. We have failed to commit ourselves wholeheartedly. Our response to initiatives has too often been no, whereas as Sir Leon Brittan said, it should have been "Yes, but".
I agree with other noble Lords that the communique which came from the Dublin summit showed a welcome change. But, as other noble Lords have said, it is truly unnecessary in these circumstances to put up Aunt Sallies in order to knock them down. No one is proposing to abolish the monarchy. All the other members of the European Community have Parliaments which are jealous of their powers. But political and monetary union are genuine objectives which must be taken seriously and we must take our part in the process. Who doubts now that if we had joined the ERM when my noble friend Lord Jenkins first proposed that or had done so on a number of occasions since then, it would have been a good thing?
The argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that, because the City is wrong about short-term ism, we should not take its advice about the ERM, is reasoning which I do not fully follow. Because someone is wrong about one thing, it does not mean that they are wrong about everything. Economic and monetary union will follow the
1434
implementation of the Single European Act. When that happens we shall have to develop institutions to control the arrangements which will inevitably follow and accompany that process.
That leads one straight to the question of how the democratic deficit is to be filled. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that one of the things required is that the proceedings of the Council of Ministers should be opened up to the public. The meetings should not be held in private. We should not be presented with conclusions which have been reached we know not how. It also means of course that the powers of the European Parliament should be strengthened. The Prime Minister's answer to the question of the democratic deficit is that the best Europe we can build is a Europe of 12 sovereign states sitting freely and willingly together. That was also the theme of the Bruges speech, which was little more than a plea that we should return to EFTA rather than develop the European Community—a hope which neglects the fact that it is members of EFTA who are queueing up to join the European Community and not members of the Community who are queueing to join EFTA. The same theme was recently repeated in a speech by Mr. Tebbit in which he argued with characteristic perversity that an EC which moved towards further political integration would be likely to provoke a resurgence of German nationalism.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out, there has been the extraordinary speech by Mr. Ridley which was reported in the Financial Times today, in which he suggests that governments could opt out of the European Community arrangements depending upon national instincts or economic circumstances. That is a new government policy. The Minister must explain what it implies, because it undermines the policies which he expressed, or I understood him to express, in his opening speech, and which his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary expressed in the speech in Paris earlier this month which was referred to earlier.
The formula—this is the point that I wish to make—of 12 sovereign states sitting together is an inaccurate description of the Community as set forth in the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. By signing the Treaty of Rome and passing the Single European Act, we ceased in certain respects to be a sovereign state in the sense in which the Prime Minister suggests. That is something which people must accept. It lies at the heart of the idea of the European Community. In addition, we have now accepted economic and monetary union. We have accepted qualified majority voting. They are all limitations on our national sovereignty.
The posture adopted by the Prime Minister has another disadvantage. It fails to offer a constructive alternative to proposals put to us from M. Delors or Presidents Kohl and Mitterrand. Because of that posture, and because we refuse to define the route along which we are proceeding, or our destination, we have lost control of the agenda. The agenda is in the hands of and composed by others. Again and again we find ourselves responding, apparently negatively, to the initiatives of others and to an

1435
agenda set by others. The latest example of that is of course the Kohl/Mitterrand statement of 12th April.
The post-war years were dominated politically and militarily by two superpowers and economically by the United States. The Gorbachev revolution has shifted that balance of power radically in favour of the West. We can foresee a smaller US military presence, growing pressure on NATO countries to contribute more to their own defence and greater European influence on NATO's policies. At the same time, political co-operation with the European Community is becoming slowly established and the European Community will become, in the words of a statement from the State Department on the 22nd,
"An important political factor in the world with which the United States wishes to have a formal relationship".
Thus, should the USSR survive and hold together—I should like to reinforce the description given by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of the condition in Central and Eastern Europe and the USSR as being extremely fragile—we shall be living in a tripolar world politically, and with the establishment of monetary union, either London or Frankfurt will become the third centre of financial power with New York and Tokyo.
Those are huge changes which would probably have happened anyway but which are being hastened by the Gorbachev revolution. I hope that within the development of the momentous events which follow that revolution this country will not remain a bystander at or beyond the fringes of the new centres of gravity or that it will become a satellite or a forgotten island but will be an active participant, shaping with others the institutions of the future.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing his Motion. It is an opportune Motion at an opportune time, as many noble Lords have said. It has also given us the opportunity to hear from a number of distinguished former members of the Commission, not least my noble friend Lord Richard, who made an eloquent and distinguished maiden speech. I am sure that we shall hear much more from him in the future.
We were also glad to hear about the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, as chairman of the committee, and we look forward not just to hearing what the committee has to say about those momentous matters but to participating in discussions with the noble Lord and members of the committee and debating his conclusions in your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may return, as did my noble friend Lord Jay, to the terms of the Motion. It is:
"To call attention to the case for Her Majesty's Government taking an active role in seeking to define a more precise shape for future European political and monetary union".
I want to concentrate on the financial side—that is, on economic and monetary union—as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, when opening from these Benches, dealt comprehensively with political union;
1436
not, I have to say, that the two are inseparable. One of the themes that has emerged from the debate is that there is a linkage between economic and monetary union and political union, whatever that, in the end, may mean.
It is impossible to consider economic and monetary union without considering also its political aspects. That is a point which has been made by a number of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in my view put his finger on the point when he talked, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, reminded us, of persistent misunderstanding. There has been persistent misunderstanding by a number of people in the United Kingdom of what the Community is about; and also persistent misunderstanding by some of us, if I may say so, of what the Government's position is; because today we had from the Minister a speech which was different in content from contributions we have had from Ministers in the House before.
At the same time, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, reminded us, we read in the press this morning a contribution from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. So far as I know, he is a Member of the Cabinet and I believe it is proper to quote what he said at some length. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, it goes in a completely contrary direction to what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said earlier. I quote from the article in the Independent this morning which reported Mr. Ridley's speech:
"How far individual member states wished to travel along the road of economic and monetary union would be for them to decide. Could there not be regional groupings within the overall union, as we already have with Benelux or the Schengen group?
"France and Germany could form a closer alliance still if they wished. There could be currency agreements, either of the ERM type or full currency union as envisaged in current plans for European Monetary Union.
"Those who wished could form joint central banks to manage their currencies. But there should be no compulsion on others to join such arrangements".
I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, in the starkest possible terms, whether that represents the view of Her Majesty's Government or whether what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said earlier this afternoon represents the Government's view. I hope that when winding up the noble Lord will be quite clear about this, because if not we shall press him until it is clear.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn dealt with political union, and again there is some misunderstanding about what it means. In my view it is not a fixed concept. It is not that there will be supra-national government, federalism. It is not a concept that we either have or do not have. It is not like virginity, where one is either a virgin or not a virgin, we either have political union or we do not. We already have a measure of political union and my noble friend Lord Jay was quite right to point out that the Single European Act of 1986 gave us a substantial measure of political union because, on a qualified majority vote, it gave to the Council of Ministers of the various European authorities power to dictate to Parliament what it should put into legislation in

1437
the United Kingdom. If anything, that is part of a political union.
We should not be too shy about saying that political union is something we cannot accept at all. This Parliament and this House have voted to grant to the European authorities and institutions a significant measure of political union. The question we must ask ourselves now is: will the measures proposed require a cession of sovereignty, an increase in political union beyond that which is tolerable? Here we enter the area of controversy.
I should like to advance to your Lordships three propositions about economic and monetary union, and I pick up a comment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The first is that there is a consensus throughout the Community that economic and monetary union will happen. There is no question mark as to whether this will happen; it is how it will happen that is in question. We must first get used to the idea—and most noble Lords are used to it—that it will happen, whether or not we like it. There can be differing views on that subject. I suspect that there is also a consensus in the United Kingdom that it will happen, again whether we like it or not.
My second proposition derives from the first. It is that the Exchange Rate Mechanism is seen, at least by 11 members out of 12 in the Community, as being a halfway house. It is not a final stop. The single market requires a single price. The single price requires some kind of fixed exchange rate mechanism or the best we can obtain under present circumstances.
My third proposition is that in Europe—that is, in the Community—11 out of 12 states perceive political union and European economic and monetary union as going side by side. I wish to start from that base, and we begin with a divergence of views. This is the second matter on which I ask the Minister for clarification. There are two proposals for the structure of a monetary union. There is the common currency proposal which one can call in shorthand, Delors Stage 3; and the UK Treasury proposal, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred in his opening speech.
I can understand it if the Government say that the Treasury method is better than Delors Stage 3 for arriving at monetary union. If they support monetary union, that is presumably what they say. However that is incompatible with the statement that competition between monetary policies in the Community is what the UK Treasury paper is all about. The logical end of the Treasury position—assuming we go to monetary union—is irrevocably fixed exchange rates and monetary policy throughout the Community properly co-ordinated. If we go on a competing monetary policy basis, we shall not get to monetary union.
I ask the noble Lord to be quite clear in his winding up. Which view of the Treasury document do the Government aspire to: monetary union and irrevocably fixed exchange rates; or no monetary union and freely floating exchange rates but competing monetary policies? The two views are not compatible. I ask the noble Lord when he replies which one the Government adopt.
1438
The answer to that question determines the answer to the Government's view of political union. As many noble Lords have pointed out, the Monnet principle is that one starts with something practical with a view to bringing in something political behind its back, if I may interpret what my noble friend Lord Jay said. The Monnet view is exactly what we perceive to be the Delors view. Once we have an institution, a central bank, a common currency, inevitably such an institution will require—through the process of democratic accountability—some further form of political union.
I do not have to remind your Lordships that the United States, in trying to set up a central bank, had two attempts at it before the federal reserve system came into being. The two attempts were failures because there was no political consensus to set up a central banking mechanism. It was only when there was a political consensus that the federal reserve system was made to work and could work.
On the other hand, if one has monetary union but without a central bank, it is possible to look at the monetary union between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Between Irish independence and 1979 there was monetary union between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, but there was no common central bank, no political union. I do not believe that anyone would say that there was any form of political union between ourselves and the Irish during that period, yet it seemed to work reasonably well.
I do not regard that as a good model for the future of Europe because clearly the United Kingdom was dominant in that relationship in monetary terms and therefore the Bank of England could take monetary decisions and the United Kingdom Government could take monetary decisions which were, by the nature of things, extended into Ireland.
I come back to the noble Lord's Motion. The Government must make up their mind. If they say they are in favour of monetary union and of political union, moving the frontiers towards some further cession of sovereignty on an agreed basis, they must make up their mind exactly where they are. Not only that, but they must tell us where they are. I agree with my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon on one precise matter. I believe that there is a case for a Green Paper setting out what the Government think would be the effect on the United Kingdom of our entry into the Exchange Rate Mechanism. I do not see why the electorate, Parliament and informed opinion should not have the benefit of the Government's views on exactly what will happen. I believe that the Government must be much more open and forthright than they have been up to now in saying what they think about these matters.
I accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, with reference to the train going to Birmingham via Eastbourne, or possibly getting to Rugby. It is clear that the European express is on the point of leaving the station. How many times it will stop to pick up new passengers, we do not know. How many passengers will want to get off, we do not know. How fast it will go, we do not know. We shall certainly not stop the passengers from arguing as it goes along

1439
about which way it should be going and how fast. Nevertheless, the train is on the move. The idea that we should not be passengers or should have second class seats is not one that should be on the agenda. Equally, to get on the train simply to pull the cord and try to bring it to a shuddering halt is not something that could be seriously advocated, and I hope is not an idea that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, himself would advocate.
My noble friend Lord Cledwyn made the point that there was not enough direction from Government on foreign policy generally. I would reinforce that point. I believe that ministerial statements need to be made about where we are going in Europe. It is not just a question of statements, it is a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, of tone. Do the Government embrace this with enthusiasm or do they not?
Perhaps I may tell a short story about President de Gaulle. When he became President of France in 1962 he went to the Elysee. He said that he did not like the Elysee very much, and that he should have liked to go to the Louvre because one cannot make history in the 8th arrondissement. I should like the Government to move, psychologically, from the 8th arrondissement to the 1st arrondissement. I should like them to say where they stand. I know that we do not go in for declaratory politics in the same way as our friends on the Continent of Europe, but from time to time perhaps we should be less shy. If we wish to send out signals to the international community we ought to do so in terms that the international community has learnt to understand.
There may be a case for a government statement about where the Government are going and what we are invited to accept. It is time for the Government to give a lead. It is time for the Government to accept the thrust of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to give us a lead and to tell us and the world what their European policy is and where they intend to take us.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I began my speech this afternoon by making clear why I welcomed this debate. My hopes for it have not been disappointed. We have heard a most distinguished list of speakers, many of them with great experience of European matters. I noted particularly the interesting maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating him.
The thoughtfulness of many of the speeches made today shows precisely why national parliamentary views on the future of the Community must be taken fully into account in the debates on which we are now embarked and why the thread of national parliamentary interest and scrutiny must be woven more extensively into the new institutional fabric of the Community.
Of course I regret that not all of your Lordships have accepted that the Government's approach to these vitally important subjects is the right one. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was the first this afternoon
1440
to challenge our policy. I took the liberty of looking back in his European Diary of the years when he was President of the European Commission to what he was doing 10 years ago, on 6th June 1980.I saw that on that day he gave some friends an outline for a speech he was to make the following week. One of them:
"sensibly was inclined to take the view that if he were me he would say as little as possible, but this was not the view of the others nor at that stage mine".
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, had taken similar advice on this occasion, for I thought his speech uncharacteristically misread the points of principle on which government policy is based and too easily dismissed the core issue of maintaining a balance between national and central powers. In doing so, the noble Lord has failed to understand where the true centre of gravity now lies in the Community on institutional issues and why others, as well as the United Kingdom, place such emphasis on the role of national parliaments in enhancing democratic accountability and, to use the phrase of the French Foreign Minister, the "motor role" of the Council of Ministers in the Community's decision-making.
Perhaps I may set out in greater detail the ideas which the Government have floated in recent weeks on possible institutional change. First, we have advocated the need to improve democratic accountability in the Community. As I have said, there are several ways to do this, but a central element is maintaining or enhancing the accountability of Ministers in the Council to their national parliaments. There has been increased emphasis on this in recent Community discussions.
Only a fortnight ago the Government announced a package of measures designed to improve the effectiveness of the scrutiny arrangements in another place to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred. We should also like to see stronger links between national parliaments and the European Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Scrota, attended a valuable meeting last month of the chairmen of scrutiny committees in member state legislatures. We hope that such meetings take place more regularly in the future. I am sure that a number of members of your Lordships' House will be attending the assizes, involving national parliaments in the European Parliament, which will be held in Italy in the autumn. Improved contacts, better procedures, more accountability—that is the essence of the British approach.
Another way of increasing democratic accountability would be to give the European Parliament a greater role in examining the way in which the Community's funds are spent and its decisions carried out. We know from our own history that parliaments derived their strength from two basic functions—the power to legislate and the power to hold the executive accountable for its actions. Some of our partners would like to see the European Parliament's legislative role strengthened. The Single European Act did, however, provide for that. What it did not do, and we should like to remedy the omission, was to encourage Strasbourg to develop the other arm of parliamentary authority.

1441
Improving the Community's efficiency and effectiveness should in our view be a major objective of that exercise. We have suggested that in this regard greater attention needs to be given to improving implementation and enforcement of agreed EC legislation.
A recent Commission report showed that Britain's record in implementing single market measures was best in the Community. Our record in other areas is also good. Unfortunately that of some of our partners is rather uneven. The Government are pleased that many of them are now paying more attention to this. We have also suggested that the Commission should extend the practice of publishing six-monthly reports on implementation of the single market programme into the other major areas of Community activity—transport, telecommunications, industry, agriculture, and the environment.
We think that that would make a difference to Community decision-making. It would narrow the gap between the Europe of phrases and the Europe of facts. It would enhance the Community's international credibility: those who can deliver internally are bound to be taken more seriously on the international stage. It will also ensure that the Community continues to enjoy the support of its own citizens. For if the 1992 dream of bringing down the barriers and creating an even playing field for Europe's citizens and businesses does not come true, our citizens will rightly ask why.
As I have said, a searchlight on implementation can be switched on without any change of treaties, but we have also made clear that the Community should, in addition, consider the more radical step of giving the European Court of Justice and the Commission stronger powers of enforcement. That would mean real sanctions, added to the political and moral force which decisions on non-compliance already enjoy.
We also believe that there is scope for improving the Community's effectiveness in the area of political co-operation and foreign policy co-ordination, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wiedenfeld, referred. Most member states are quite clear that separate national interests are involved which they are not prepared to surrender. We do not quarrel, for example, with the independent action by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl on Lithuania in April. Each of the Twelve has faced occasions when there was a need to pursue distinct national interests, but increasingly the Twelve are speaking together on an increasingly wide range of issues. We shall be examining ways of improving the coherence of the Community's international performance—in capitals, in the work of our embassies abroad and in international bodies.
Finally—this matter was discussed at the Dublin summit in April—we must take a long, hard look at the principle of subsidiarity to which my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred. The Government do not pretend that this will be an easy task, but it is an essential one. There is a widespread concern in the Community to be more precise about the limitation of national and Community areas of activity. That seems
1442
particularly important in a developing Community in order to preserve powers for national governments and national parliaments. We see a fundamental democratic principle at stake here: the need to keep decisions, power and accountability as close as possible to people. So we and our partners will be considering how subsidiarity might be embodied more fully in the treaty. It is already there in embryonic form in provisions dealing with the environment, but what we are talking about now is a more systematic application of the principle.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the remarks made by noble Lords. It was good of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to acknowledge some of his past mistakes, but the Government are not, as he alleged, short on either commitment to or understanding of the Community. We do not think that the Community will become a United States of Europe and we are happy to debate vigorously with those who do. But we have no doubt that the Community has a strong political dimension. It has a central role to play in, for instance, the future of Eastern Europe. The noble Lord is wrong to suggest otherwise. We have both vision and practical ideas, as was demanded of us and of European Governments. So in all three of the noble Lord's examples it is clear that the Government are pursuing an active and committed approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether the Government would support a decision to call an IGC on political union. That is a decision for the Dublin council and it will be taken by a simple majority. We have made clear our willingness to go along with such a decision if our partners want to pursue the debate. The noble Lord implied that at present the European Parliament has no power to amend legislation. It has such a power, as my noble friend Lady Elles explained, but the Belgian paper to which the noble Lord referred goes much further than that and proposes co-decisions between the Parliament and the Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the Commission's paper on EMU and particularly on the need for structural discussions of member states' economies. I agree. Such discussions already take place in the exercise known as multilateral surveillance. Arrangements will be strengthened as part of Stage 1 of EMU, which has been agreed and which begins on 1st July. The Government are ready to agree rules to make participation in those arrangements binding.
My noble friend Lady Elles said that we too often run ourselves down. I entirely agree with her on that point. The UK plays a positive part in the Community and we more often than not find ourselves in the majority. I am not entirely in agreement with my noble friend on the kind of institutional changes proposed. For example, we do not believe that there should be a wholesale extension of the co-operation procedure, but I agree with my noble friend's call for increasing scrutiny of Community legislation, for increasing the financial accountability of the Community and for improvements in European political co-operation.
I listened carefully to the very good maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, drawn from long

1443
experience in the Community and in diplomacy. I should simply point out to him that it was the diplomatic expertise of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister which won us the Fontainebleau abatement to our budget contribution in 1984—an achievement which by the end of this year will have been worth £7-5 billion to the United Kingdom. I hope that that will at least get two cheers from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
I welcomed the ready acknowledgement of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the Government are hard at work at the coal-face of the European Community. I entirely agree that the EC is not just a matter of trade. As I said earlier in the debate, we are committed to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, but in constructing that union it is vital that the principle of subsidiarity is respected.
The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton—I was grateful to my noble friend for his kind words about my earlier remarks—spoke of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The Government's overall aim in their policy on Eastern Europe is to support and encourage the political and economic reform process in those countries and thus to increase European stability and security. On the question of enlarging membership of the European Community, we and our Community partners are agreed that association agreements should be the next stage in our relations with Central and Eastern European countries. Such agreements will provide an ever closer relationship as political and economic reforms continue in those countries. The question of full EC membership is not one for the immediate future. It is clear that reform must go much further before those countries can meet the obligations of EC membership, but, when they can and if they choose to apply, we should certainly welcome them.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made a characteristically robust speech to which I always enjoy listening. However, I must admit that I do not agree with all that he said. I thank him for his eloquent defence of the Prime Minister's approach to political union and his recognition that the UK makes a significant contribution to the Community's activities. I should perhaps point out to the noble Lord that in financial terms the Federal Republic of Germany is by far the largest net contributor to the Community budget. Our position on the exchange rate mechanism, with which the noble Lord dealt at some length, has been made clear many times, most recently this afternoon in answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which was answered by my noble friend the Paymaster General.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for making clear quite how significant were the changes to the Community agreed by the member states with the Single European Act which came into effect so recently and how resilient are the individual characters of each member state. We agree with his view that an active and dynamic united Germany as a member of the Community is an entirely welcome prospect.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Aldington for his words about my opening speech. I welcome
1444
the establishment of his ad hoc committee. I note that officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have already given informal evidence to it. Obviously we shall continue to co-operate as much as possible with that committee.
It seems clear to me that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has slightly lost touch with the Community and the United Kingdom's role since he left the Commission 18 months ago. It is absurd to claim on the basis of the Government's reply to the FAC report that the Government are not committed to all aspects of the Single European Act. Of course we are. We are in the lead in the formulation of EC environmental policy. The noble Lord's successor as Environment Commissioner recently published a table of infractions of environmental legislation which showed that the UK had a good record of compliance. Generally, as I have said before, our record on implementation and compliance in the single market and other areas is second to none. We are wholly committed to the social dimension of the EC, but we thought—and we made our feelings clear—that the social charter marked a return to the bad old days of over-regulation, ignoring the top priority of creating new jobs and enhancing competitiveness. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was good enough to give some comparative figures for the movement in unemployment between us and other member states.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough asked what the Government thought of the possibility of Eastern European countries joining some of the multilateral organisations of Europe. We welcome the interest shown by East Europeans in the Council of Europe and hope that they will become members as they meet the requirements, which are a pluralist democracy and a guarantee of human rights. The applications of some Eastern European countries to join are well advanced, such as those for Hungary Czechoslovakia and Poland, and we expect to see them as members soon. The whole of the united Germany will of course be a member.
The important thing is to integrate the East Europeans via the CSCE, close association with the EC and membership of the Council of Europe into a wider Europe politically and economically. The CSCE will provide a forum at which security arrangements for all 35 can be discussed. Although I agree with the questioning attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, toward centralisation, I could not help thinking that there were aspects of his speech which seemed to ignore some of the lessons of the past 50 or 60 years. I am clear that the noble Lord underestimates the potential benefits to the United Kingdom of the single market and of closer economic and monetary integration.
I dispute the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the Community agenda is set by others. We are acknowledged to be among the leaders on the approach, for example, to EC relations with Eastern Europe, on developing relationships with the United States and Japan, on our liberal approach to the GATT-Uruguay round and on the 1992 programme. Even on political union it is clear

1445
that the principles advocated by the United Kingdom are widely accepted in the Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and indeed the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to quotations from a speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I think it would be unwise of me to comment on selective quotations from a speech which I have not seen.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I have a copy here and I shall lend it to him.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have time to read through it right now. But for the avoidance of any doubt I can tell noble Lords that the speech which I made this afternoon obviously represents government policy.
Nor do I accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is a contradiction in the Treasury EMU paper. We believe that Stage I will lead to increasing convergence. We believe that our evolutionary market-based approach will produce greater monetary stability. At this time I do not propose to go any further, but the Treasury paper means what it says.
To conclude, the United Kingdom is committed to the Community, which is the heart of our foreign policy and central to the United Kingdom's and Europe's future prosperity. The United Kingdom Government have a clear vision of the Community's future. We want it to remain open, liberal, a model for democratic and civilised relationships between advanced countries. We want the Community to be dynamic, responding to the world outside as well as acting as a catalyst for positive change in our Continent and beyond. But we also seek to combine our vision with practical ideas. Our contribution is both to the architecture and the actual construction of the new Europe. We shall not leave the building site or lose interest in the work when the bricks and mortar arrive. And it is because we care about the finished product that we want to close the gap between the Europe of facts and the Europe of fantasies. That is why we shall go on doing what today's Motion enjoins us to do—taking an active role in defining the future shape of the European Community.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am not a great believer in second speeches, particularly now that the hour has reached its present point. As the debate took a constructive and non-polemical tone—which I hoped it would—I do not propose to reply to the Minister's second speech. It was sometimes a little more polemical than his first speech but we thank him very much for the two speeches. I therefore confine myself to thanking the 16 noble Lords who, apart from the government spokesman, took part in the debate.
I should also like to say how much we welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and look forward to the work of his committee. I
1446
congratulate my noble friend Lord Richard on his maiden speech in this House. It was a notable maiden speech. He comes to us with a great record of European service. To the best of my recollection he is indeed the only member of the Labour Party who has ever rebuked me for lack of adequate European fervour. That was in 1968 when he thought that I handled a monetary conference in Bonn without sufficient regard for the European dimension. I was almost tempted to ask him whether he would give me a certificate to the effect that my European fervour was inadequate as it might have been rather useful to me in the Labour Party in subsequent days. I greatly welcome him to this House and congratulate him on his admirable speech. I thank all the participants. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

European Parliament Electoral Reform Bill [H.L.]
8.16 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
This is a very appropriate moment to move the Third Reading of the Bill. After all, we have been discussing Europe for the whole of this afternoon. This little Bill of mine, which I put before your Lordships on 23rd March, is an attempt to change and reform the way in which Members of the European Parliament are elected. It is designed to provide the European Parliament with the maximum legitimacy and authority. In view of the discussions that we have had this afternoon, in which many noble Lords supposed that greater powers will be acquired by the European Parliament in the future, it is obviously a matter of importance both that it should have the maximum legitimacy and that British membership in that Parliament should be as representative as possible and not as distorted as it is under the present system.
Secondly, the Bill is an attempt to introduce a system that conforms more closely with Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome. That is now being looked at by a committee in Brussels, which, as I understand it, wholly approves of the Bill that I have put before your Lordships.
I very much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Underbill, is not with us tonight. I understand that he is ill. He conducted a rather difficult operation earlier in the passage of the Bill with the utmost skill and with his customary charm. I hope that he recovers very soon. I should like to take the opportunity of thanking noble Lords who assisted in the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Bonham-Carter.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
8.19 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Promoted by Associated British Ports, the Bill seeks to develop and improve facilities at three of its ports; namely, Immingham on Humberside, King's Lynn in Norfolk and Port Talbot in South Wales. ABP, as I shall continue to call Associated British Ports, was privatised under the Transport Act 1981. However, it has a statutory duty under that Act to provide such port facilities as it thinks expedient. It is in pursuance of that duty that ABP promotes the Bill which is before your Lordships today.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I deal first with the technical or drafting amendments that have been passed by the Unopposed Bill Committee of your Lordships' House. At scrutiny by that Unopposed Bill Committee it was appreciated that technical amendments in Clauses 3 and 18 were required, mainly, as I understand it, as a result of changes in legislation since the Bill started its passage through another place in November 1987. To the best of my knowledge there is nothing whatsoever controversial in any of those amendments. I therefore hope and assume that another place will approve them on the nod.
I shall come later to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. However, had it not been for that amendment my speech this evening would have been less than half its present length.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill on 26th February 1990 I outlined its provisions in some detail. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with so many technicalities today. However, for the benefit of those noble Lords who were unable to be in their places on that earlier occasion I should like to give a brief summary of the Bill's contents.
The improvement sought by ABP at Immingham is the creation of a new facility for a dry bulk cargo berth which would enable more and larger vessels to dock there. The Bill sets out three proposed works needed to effect this. Work No. I comprises a jetty and jetty head. Work No. 2 comprises a secondary jetty to give additional access to the jetty head. Work No. 3 proposes a reclamation landwards to the jetty head to provide additional back-up land. This new jetty head would mean that the size of vessels docking at Immingham would no longer be confined to those which could pass through lock gates. There would also be scope for handling a substantially increased amount of traffic. The effect of the proposed works would be to relieve potential congestion and to enable larger ships to use the port and greatly reduce expensive transhipment at Continental ports.
At King's Lynn, ABP wishes to construct a quay to provide new berths, again enabling more and larger ships to visit the port. The improvements proposed at Port Talbot—a port principally used by British Steel Corporation—are to deepen and lengthen the dredged channel forming the approach
1448
to the tidal harbour so that, again, larger cargoes can be handled. The consent of Parliament to these works that I have outlined is required because the proposed works are to be constructed in tidal waters.
ABP needs to make these improvements in order to maintain the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the UK's port industry. ABP has shown itself to be remarkably successful since its privatisation. Its holding company, ABP Holdings, was floated on the Stock Exchange in 1983, since when its turnover and profitability have increased to the extent that it has achieved the highest growth in quoted share price and market valuation of all the previously state owned enterprises now in the private sector. I should like to emphasise to your Lordships that investments in the developments proposed in the Bill will not involve any recourse to public funds.
During the passage of the Bill in another place, and at Second Reading in your Lordships' House, objections were expressed on the ground of what is generally called the coal issue. In the context of the Bill that effectively meant objection to the proposed new berth at Immingham.
In another place the Bill was referred to a Select Committee which reported by a majority vote that the Bill should be allowed to proceed without amendment. That committee asked for and received an undertaking from ABP that once the new facilities at Immingham were in place ABP would provide another place and the Government with detailed information about steam coal imports.
In your Lordships' House at Second Reading the noble Lords, Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Underbill, raised objections to the Bill again on the grounds of the coal issue. Ten petitions had been deposited against the Bill and it was therefore referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir, that committee has unanimously reported the Bill to the House without amendment.
The committee's opinion is so well and succinctly set out that I feel I can do no better than quote part of it verbatim in drawing its conclusions to your Lordships' attention. I hope that noble Lords who were members of that Select Committee will forgive me if I take their conclusions slightly out of order.
Paragraph 17 of the special report states:
"So far as the proposed facilities themselves are concerned, the Committee make the further observation that were it not for the coal issue, the Bill would have been unopposed in the House of Lords and would not have come before the Committee at all".
I therefore submit to your Lordships that effectively the only point at issue is with regard to the proposed increase in facilities at Immingham. Indeed, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, seems to support that opinion.
Paragraphs 16 and 18 of the special report say:
"The Committee take the view that the Promoters have duly established a need for their proposed facilities at Immingham. As the Select Committee in the House of Commons stated, Associated British Ports are a reputable company with a proven track record of operating port facilities and Immingham already has a successful and well-managed port. The Committee accept the expert evidence of the Chairman and Managing Director of

1449
AB Ports that there is a demand for further deep water common user dock facilities in the east coast; and they agree that insofar as the proposed facilities may enable Immingham to compete more easily with other European ports they are of national as well as of local and regional importance".
Paragraph 18 states:
"The Committee also agree with the Promoters that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about the Bill and the private bill procedure was the proper means for them to seek powers to construct works in tidal waters".
I now deal with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, on the question of environmental assessment. I should like first to point out that this aspect of the Bill was considered in depth by the Select Committee. Indeed, the evidence on that subject alone, excluding exhibits, runs to some 22 pages of typescript. Paragraph 10 of the Select Commitee report, which sets out the issue the committee was asked to consider, states:
"The [Coalfield Communities] Campaign also objected to the works at Immingham on environmental grounds. The Promoters, they said, should have prepared and submitted to Parliament an environmental assessment statement in accordance with the relevant European Community Directive (85/337); and the Committee should adjourn until such a statement had been made available. More specifically, the Campaign were much concerned at the potential impact of increased transport of coal by road on the communities near power stations. Accordingly, they proposed an amendment to make it obligatory for coal unloaded at the new facility at Immingham to be transported to the generating stations by rail or barge".
The committee reached the following conclusion in paragraph 19 after listening to the detailed submissions:
"They do not accede to the requests of the Campaign that the Promoters should be obliged to prepare an environmental assessment statement and that the Committee should adjourn for that purpose. Parliament may in due course incorporate a system of environmental assessment into private business standing orders; but at present promoters of bills are under no such obligation. In any event, there were no local objections to the works on environmental grounds".
Paragraph 20 states:
"Likewise, the Committee do not accept the proposed amendment of the Campaign"
—that is, that it should be obligatory for coal unloaded to be transported by rail or barge.
"They agree with the Promoters that local highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles by road".
I was tempted to rest the case there as I am in complete agreement with the conclusions of the Select Committee which had the advantage of detailed argument and a wealth of facts before it. Nonetheless, the amendment will, I assume, be tabled, albeit at a somewhat later stage. I must reiterate the arguments against it.
The general question of environmental assessment is governed by EC Directive (85/337), implemented by Circular 15/88 entitled Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects Regulations 1988.)
In 1989 the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office produced a book entitled, Environmental Assessment, a Guide to Environment Assessment, referred to briefly as "the guide." There is no doubt about there being no obligation on the
1450
promoters of the Bill to provide an environmental statement. I quote from paragraph 68 of the guide:
"Under Article 1.5 of the Directive, the Directive does not apply to projects the details of which are approved by a specific act of national legislation. This provision serves to exempt projects which are authorised by a Private Bill".
Paragraph 8 of the regulations is equally clear. It states:
"The process of environmental assessment should not be imposed where it is not required by the Directive".
I have already quoted verbatim paragraph 10 of the special report of the Select Committee. In it the Coalfield Communities Campaign sought to argue before the Select Committee that an environmental assessment statement was mandatory on the promoters. It relied principally for that submission on the construction of the wording of the directive. In fact, and with great respect to the noble Lords opposite, it might have done better to seek support from the guide which I have just quoted to your Lordships. It goes on to state:
"It is the Government's view that where, but for this provision, environmental assessment would have been required for a project, the promoter of a Bill should provide an environmental statement which can be considered by the Select and Standing Committees of each House on the Bill".
It is by no means clear from either the directive, the guide or the regulations whether in theory the Immingham project falls into that category. It would appear to hinge on whether it is defined as a trading port on the one hand or a modification of a trading port or, within the context of infrastructure projects, a harbour on the other hand. However, I do not believe that it is either necessary or fruitful to discuss such semantics. The promoters of the Bill have no wish to rely on technicalities in order to escape from any moral—for there are certainly no statutory—obligations.
Therefore, in answer to the proposed amendment I argue as follows. The relevant local authorities were consulted and they raised no objections. Quite the contrary. I shall quote from a letter received from Glandford Borough Council in South Humberside. It states:
"The Borough Council is of the view that this proposed development is a natural extension of the activities of the port of Immingham. The development will give security of employment and it is hoped will also increase employment potential in an area where there is a need for new jobs to be created. The expansion of the Port will also help the general development of the area and is seen as being particularly important in the run-up to 1992 and the need to be more competitive with Continental Ports. The development is not seen as having any adverse effect on the environment of the area, bearing in mind the: excellent road structure linking to the national motorway network which already exists.
Similarly, Cleethorpes Borough Council has stated:
"In so far as much of the proposed development is within the borough of Cleethorpes I wish to register my council's continuing support for the proposals. Without doubt the port of Immingham, with its excellent rail and road communications, is one of the most successful in the UK and this timely expansion of its facilities will enable it to take the lead in developing strong economic links in the post-1992 era with our neighbours in Europe".
Under the regulations it is open to local authorities to call for further information or advice on a project.

1451
Clear evidence was also given to the Select Committee that British Rail has the capacity to carry the additional tonnages which would go through the new jetty. In addition, as I have already pointed out, the Select Committee found that local highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles by road. Having said all that, I respectfully remind your Lordships that it is not within the control of Associated British Ports or any other owner/operator of any port anywhere in this country to control where cargoes come from or go to and how they move from or to such place.
In my submission, this is not the kind of case envisaged for environmental assessment at all. For example, projects listed in the directive as requiring environmental assessment include thermal power stations, installations designed for the permanent storage or final disposal of radioactive waste and installations for the extraction of asbestos. The directive, regulations and guide are concerned with direct and relatively local effects which can reasonably be forecast from such projects. Here we are talking about a number of commodities which can be taken anywhere at any time, because they are responsive to the market and to customers. It would be impossible to make a meaningful environmental assessment when there are so many imponderables. I quote again from the regulations. Paragraph 8 states:
"It has been the Government's aim in implementing the requirements of the Directive to ensure that no unnecessary additional burdens are placed on either developers or authorities … while such [environmental assessment] statements will need to comply with the requirements of the Directive, it is important that they should be prepared on a realistic basis and without undue elaboration; and that the additional costs imposed on developers by the requirement to provide information about environmental effects should be kept to the minimum consistent with compliance with the Directive".
Finally, and I have apologised for the inordinate length of time I have taken, I should like to point out that this Bill has a long history. It began its progress in 1987 and was considered by two Select Committees; the first in another place and the second in this House. Although the directive dates from 1985 this environmental assessment issue was not raised until very late in the hearing of evidence before your Lordships' Select Committee just a matter of a few weeks ago. I do not think that I can do better than to quote from ABP's counsel in summing up before the Select Committee when he said, "It is a speculative, late in the day amendment".
The main issue which the committee was required to consider was the possible impact of the proposed developments at Immingham on the British coalmining industry. The arguments on this were well aired at Second Reading and doubtless will be again today; I do not propose to reiterate them in detail. I should, however, like to remind your Lordships that paragraph 12 of the Select Committee special report reads;
"British Coal sought an amendment to prohibit the importation of coal at Immingham before the end of 1995 or thereafter unless an order authorising such importation had been made by the Secretary of State".
1452
The Select Committee special report, at paragraph 21, reads:
"Although the Committee were in no doubt that the Bill should be allowed to proceed with the provisions relating to all three ports, they considered carefully the amendment proposed by British Coal in relation to Immingham",
namely, the one that I have just instanced. The same paragraph 21 of the special report continues:
"They accept British Coal's arguments that there was nothing procedurally improper about the amendment and that a committee on a private bill has a duty to consider not only the issues between the parties appearing before them but also the wider public interest. But they are unanimously of the opinion—an opinion shared by all members of the Commons Select Committee—that the Petitioners' arguments raise complex matters of energy and trade policy for which ultimately the national government must take responsibility. The Committee accept too the Promoters' argument that there are considerable uncertainties over the prospects for imported cheap steam coal in the mid and late 1990s; and that it would be quite wrong on the basis of present forecasts to introduce a major and unprecedented protectionist provision into a private bill".
The Select Committee goes on in paragraphs 22 and 23 to express its grave anxiety about the potential effect on the coal industry and on coalfield communities of substantial imports of cheap foreign coal. It asks the Government to,
"give some indication that if the present risk of danger to the coal industry is likely to become a reality, they will give earnest consideration in the national interest to supporting the industry".
I concur with the committee's conclusion that the Government should consider any undesirable industrial or social consequences resulting from any substantial imports of cheap foreign coal in the overall context of its trade and energy policy. However, I also concur wholeheartedly with its opinion that it would be quite wrong to introduce a major and unprecedented protectionist provision into a private Bill. I submit that that opinion should be borne most heavily in mind at this evening's Third Reading.
The object of the Bill is to enable ABP to carry out its statutory duties to provide such port facilities as it thinks expedient, thereby maintaining Britain's position as an effective trading nation. It is not only in ABP's interest but also in the national interest that ABP should do that.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Geddes.)
8.41 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, to leave out all the words after ("that") and to insert ("the Bill be recommitted to the Select Committee from whom the Bill has been reported and that the committee shall consider an environmental assessment statement on the works proposed in the Bill at Immingham to be prepared by the promoters of the Bill in accordance with EC Directive 85/337").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, is no longer in the Chamber but I thank him for his kind words about my noble friend Lord Underbill, who is ill. Part of the reason why I am dealing with

1453
the Bill this evening is that my noble friend Lord Underhill has asked me to do that in his stead.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for going through the Bill and for dealing so comprehensively with my amendment. I hope to deal in my reply with many of the points which he raised. I begin by saying that the emphasis of this Bill was on the coal industry. I make no apology for that and I certainly make no apology for bringing it back. The noble Lord read out part of paragraph 21 on the arguments that there are considerable uncertainties over the prospect of imported cheap coal in the mid and late 1990s. He said that on the basis of present forecasts it would be quite wrong to introduce a major and unprecedented protectionist provision into a private Bill. That may be true in one respect but that is a very narrow way of looking at a private Bill. Surely one of the reasons for bringing back a Bill is so that the Houses of Parliament as a whole can discuss whether the Bill has dealt sufficiently with the wider factors of national interest. Why do we have a Parliament if it is not to deal with the wider interests?
In general, the special report is comprehensive and fair. Paragraph 5 points out that the Bill was considered at length on the Floor of the House and in the Select Committee of the other place. The House should be reminded that the Bill was given a Third Reading on 11th January by a majority of only 23 votes when over 400 Members voted. It was not overwhelmingly accepted.
Furthermore, the Select Committee stated that it allowed the Bill to proceed without amendment whereas paragraph 12 made clear that it rejected an amendment sought by British Coal to prohibit the importation of coal before the end of 1995. There is no disagreement that the coal industry has achieved a considerable increase in productivity since 1985. That has been an increase of over 75 per cent. That is why we accept the coal factor in this Bill unreservedly.
The Commons Select Committee expressed anxiety about the possible impact on the British coal industry if there were to be substantial coal imports. That was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, at col. 569 on Second Reading on 26th February. Paragraphs 11 to 15 of the report outline fully the anxieties of the coal industry about the development at Immingham, and that anxiety was expressed by both the trade unions and British Coal.
It was pointed out in paragraph 12 that British Coal has a contract with the electricity industry which expires in 1993. British Coal argues that there should be a prohibition on imports until the end of 1995. One wonders whether the big berth will be ready by the end of 1995. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, may know more about that than I do. I do not believe that it is asking a great deal to have a prohibition until the end of 1995. That would provide an opportunity for British Coal to take advantage of the adjustment in prices which by that time would, in all probability, be working in Britain's favour.
Paragraph 15 of the report states that the Bill's promoters declined to argue about the potential
1454
effects on the coal industry. They put forward—and the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, repeated it this evening—the rather surprising statement that:
"There was no evidence of imminent danger to the coal industry' and in any event there were a great many uncertainties about the prospects for the import of coal and its use in power stations beyond 1993".
I could continue to refer to that paragraph and also paragraph 21, which continues on the same theme.
I am pleased to note that in paragraph 23 the special report requires a definite statement from the Government during the debate. I am sure that the noble Viscount who is to reply will, with his usual thoroughness, have looked that up and be able to make just such a statement.
Before going into details about the reasons for the amendment, attention must be drawn to the environmental issues which have come to the fore in the media during recent weeks concerning the EC large plant directive, which requires that the UK shall reduce its SO2 emissions from existing power stations. On 13th December last the environment Minister, Mr. Trippier, announced that the UK is committed to reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 1993, by 40 per cent. by 1998 and by 60 per cent. by 2003. I am told that the most efficient way to carry out that obligation is by fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment—FGD equipment.
It has been suggested that, instead of undertaking that expenditure, there may be a switch from installing FGD equipment to the use of cheap imported low sulphur coal. I am not an expert on this subject but I find it difficult to believe that some FGD equipment will still not be necessary with soft coal. That is one fact which must be kept in mind.
The reason for the amendment in my name is that paragraph 19 rejects the case advanced for the preparation of an environmental assessment statement. I should like to set out the details of the EC directive and explain why it should apply to this project at Immingham and, despite what is put forward in the special report, why the Bill should be recommitted to a Select Committee for consideration in the light of the EC directive.
Article 1 of the directive applies to the assessment of the environmental effects of public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. Article 2 states that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment must be subject to assessment before consent is given. Projects listed in Annex I must always be subject to an assessment. Projects listed in Annex II are to be made subject to an assessment where member states consider that the characteristics so require. Paragraph 8 of Annex I sets out a class of projects which includes "trading ports". Paragraph 10 of Annex II refers to a class which includes harbours other than trading ports.
Although the Bill was first deposited in the House of Commons in November 1987 the committees in both Houses gave their consent to this Bill after the directive came into force on 3rd July 1988. The facility proposed at Immingham is a deep-water common-user facility for the use of vessels of

1455
120,000 tonnes and more. This is quite different in purpose from the existing facilities at Immingham and arguably comes within the trading ports category in Annex I.
Under Article 4(1) the words would have to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment before consent was given. Even if this is incorrect, the works would fall within paragraph 10 of Annex II; and in that case there would still need to be a proper determination as to whether the characteristics of the project made an assessment necessary.
Article 1(5)—I am sorry to be so detailed but it is only in this way that one can deal with such a subject—contains a provision that the directive shall not apply to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation. On the face of it, this exempts projects authorised through the private Bill procedure. However, Article 1(5) states that the reason is that,
"the objectives of this Directive, including that of supplying information, are achieved through the legislative process. The Commission takes the view that this means that the exemption is conditional on the objectives of the Directive being achieved through this legislative process."
Evidence produced in support of the Bill by the promoters including a letter from PowerGen, which identified one significant environmental impact which would arise from the use of the proposed facilities at Immingham, namely, the impact of transporation of coal by road from the port to the power stations where it would be burned. This would be contrary to the policy of local authorities in the areas where power stations are situated. These authorities almost invariably impose planning conditions requiring transportation of coal from mines to power stations to be by rail rather than by road in order to mitigate the environmental impacts.
The Coalfield Communities Campaign, which represents many of these authorities and which has petitioned against the Bill, sought to introduce an amendment requiring the transportation of coal from the port to be by rail or barge rather than by road. They also raised the environmental impact assessment point.
The committee were obviously impressed by the Coalfield Communities Campaign's submission. The chairman specifically invited counsel for the promoters to address them on the question as to whether the apparent exemption in Article 1(5) of the directive was conditional on the legislative procedure containing similar requirements. However, counsel for the promoters failed to deal with this point in his submissions. Nevertheless, the committee decided not to require the preparation of an environmental impact assessment. In their special report (paragraph 19) they argued that there were no standing orders of the House requiring promoters of Bills to present an environmental assessment. They also said that there were no local objections to the works on environmental grounds.
Likewise they rejected the Coalfield Community Campaign's proposed amendment. They agreed with the point made by the promoters that highway authorities already possessed powers to restrict the
1456
movement of heavy goods by road. I will deal with that point in a moment but I should like now briefly to turn to why the committee's decisions were wrong.
The fact that there are no standing orders requiring environmental impact assessments is, with respect, irrelevant. The significance of standing orders is simply that this would oblige the promoters to prepare an environmental impact assessment in advance of the committee proceedings and without the need for a specific request from the committee. However, there is no doubt that the committee has power of its own to require the preparation of an environmental impact assessment if its thinks fit, notwithstanding the absence of a standing order requiring that.
We would argue that the committee was also under a duty to require such an assessment, or at least to make a proper determination under Article 4(2) of the directive in order to ensure that the obligations of the United Kingdom under the directive are fulfilled. The fact that there were no local objections on environmental grounds is also immaterial. The purpose of an environmental impact assessment is to identify and assess all relevant impacts, even in the absence of objections by local interest groups. Moreover, the directive specifically requires indirect effects to be taken into account. Therefore the effect does not have to be local to the project to be relevant.
We would also argue that the committee's rejection of the Coalfield Community Campaign's amendment was misguided. The committee accepted an argument put forward by the promoters at the very last minute to the effect that the powers of highway authorities were adequate to deal with the problem. That is not the case, for two reasons: first, the powers can only be exercised against all heavy goods vehicles and they cannot single out coal lorries; and, secondly, they can only be used to re-route lorries and not to prevent their use altogether for the transportation of coal to power stations. They can only take them round a different way, and I am sure that the Minister will be very familiar with that, wearing his other hat as the Minister responsible for transport in this House.
It is for these reasons that appropriate restrictions are imposed by planning conditions, for instance, on new coalmine developments, since planning conditions are not subject to these limitations. Unfortuantely, planning authorities for the areas where power stations are located have no power to impose conditions on a port outside their area authorised under private Bill procedure.
If there had been a proper environmental impact assessment under the directive, the committee would not have been likely to fall into this error concerning the powers of highway authorities. It was the promoters who provided evidence of a significant environmental impact. They subsequently argued, in paragraph 11 of the report, that a port did not of itself create and could not be held responsible for, the movement of goods across a country once they had left the dock. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said this. It is an extraordinary thing: it is equivalent

1457
to saying that those who operate a nuclear power plant are not responsible for the requirement to reprocess and safely dispose of nuclear materials used in the plant.
The record of the United Kingdom in implementing the environmental impact assessment directive is generally very good. There is excellent provision for these assessments where projects are authorised through the town and country planning process. Even so far as the construction of ports and harbours is concerned, there is specific provision for environmental impact assessment in respect of projects authorised under the Harbours Act. The private Bill procedure represents the one blot on the landscape in this respect. It may be said that it is intended in future to provide for environmental impact assessments under the private Bill procedure by introducing new standing orders. However, this is not an excuse for failing to meet the United Kingdom's obligations under the directive in respect of this Bill because the directive was in force before the Committee in either House approved the Bill and also before the directive came into force the United Kingdom had already had three years in which fully to implement it; and finally, I believe that it is arguable that the promoters should have provided an environmental assessment in any event, simply as a matter of good practice.
I am sorry to have taken so long but the points that I have raised were in no way disrespectful to the committee: they merely link up what the committee said with the points made by those outside and those who are very much involved, and with the fact that we believe that the directives were not taken fully into account. For those reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, to leave out all the words after ("that") and insert ("the Bill be recommitted to the Select Committee from whom the Bill has been reported and that the committee shall consider an environmental assessment statement on the works proposed in the Bill at Immingham to be prepared by the promoters of the Bill in accordance with EC Directive 85/337").—(Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove.)
9 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gwydir: My Lords, as I was chairman of the Select Committee to which this important Bill was committed after the Second Reading debate on 26th February, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about our deliberations and the views that we reached. We sat for 10 full days and two further days where we heard the evidence and submissions made. We sat for a further two days on our deliberations on and preparation of the special report.
I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to my colleagues on the committee—the noble Earls, Lord Halsbury and Lord Gray, and the noble Lords, Lord Blease and Lord Wise. I thank them for their faithful attendance over what was a long period of time and for their individual and helpful contributions to the deliberations of the committee.
1458
I also thank them for their judicious objectivity and fairness throughout our sittings.
As was said by my noble friend Lord Geddes in his admirable speech, it was the unanimous decision of the committee to report the Bill to the House without amendment. In view of the interest in the Bill expressed on Second Reading and the fact that matters raised before us went far wider than the harbour works proposed in the Bill—in particular, complex issues of national energy and trade policy—we thought it right to make a special report to the House. My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to many parts of that special report, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
All I wish to say about the report is—I shall refer in part to it—that the special report was agreed unanimously and presents to the House the undivided view of its representative Select Committee. My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to Associated British Ports and he is right that there are certain undisputed facts in the report. Associated British Ports is Britain's largest port authority. It is, as my noble friend said, a reputable company which since its incorporation in 1983 has had remarkable success in the management and improvement of its port facilities, with no demand on public funds.
The parts of the Bill relating to King's Lynn and Port Talbot were not in any way objected to and therefore I shall not refer to them but solely to the issues on Immingham. The ABP port at Immingham is successful and well-managed. We were told that it is the largest in the country. It is undoubtedly well placed on the east coast of Britain and makes a major contribution not only to industrial and commercial interests along the east coast but also to the growth and value of Britain's seaborne trade and the nation's economy.
Ships using Immingham are today limited to 30,000 tonnes. As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, the main proposal in this Bill, to which each of the 10 petitioners objected, is the construction of a dry bulk cargo terminal in deep water capable of taking ships of up to 200,000 tonnes. The purpose of this investment, which is nearly £40 million, is to accommodate the larger and more cost-effective bulk cargo vessels in order to compete effectively with the giant Continental ports such as Rotterdam and Amsterdam and save expensive transhipment costs. I am sure that the whole House agrees that if that were to be achieved it would be of considerable national importance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, all the Petitions against the Bill were concerned with the single issue of imported coal; in particular, that the accommodation of large bulk cargo vessels would facilitate the importation of substantial amounts of cheap foreign steam coal. Without this concern—perhaps I should say genuine concern, and this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Geddes in regard to paragraph 17 of the special report—your Lordships may think that there is no doubt that the Bill would have been unopposed in this House and would have received Royal Assent by today.
The committee considered very carefully and very thoroughly the evidence and submissions on the coal

1459
issue and also the amendment proposed by British Coal and referred to by my noble friend when he spoke to paragraph 12 of the special report. Our unanimous decision is contained in paragraph 21 of the special report; namely, that the Petitioners' arguments raise complex matters of national energy and trade for which ultimately the national government must take responsibility. We accept the promoter's argument set out in paragraph 15 that there are considerable uncertainties over the prospects for imported steam coal in the mid and late 1990s. It would be quite wrong, on the basis of present forecasts—I repeat what has been said—to introduce a major and unprecedented protectionist provision into a private Bill.
The House may have noticed the concern we have expressed in paragraphs 22 and 23 of our special report at the potential effect on the coal industry and on coalfield communities, particularly in Nottinghamshire, of substantial imports of cheap foreign coal. I do not intend to say anything further about it except that I hope that my noble friend who will be replying for the Government will be able to respond to the anxieties that we express in paragraph 23.
I now come to the amendment, which was excellently presented by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. His presentation of the argument was immaculate. We have heard it all before. We had young Dr. Witt, who represented the Coalfield Communities Campaign and who is the agent for that campaign. He addressed us at length on this subject. Dr. Witt can be very pleased with the quality of his performance. It impressed the committee. He went into all the detail that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, went into partly. He understood the whole of the argument and put it forward very effectively indeed.
That is why, as the noble Lord said, I was impressed. I wanted the promoters to help us on what I thought was quite an important matter that was being introduced. We gave it the most careful consideration. We decided against the adjournment that he was seeking so that an environmental statement could be made. We did so having gone into every point that was put before us.
The implication in Dr. Witt's submissions to us and in this amendment is that this House is in some way bound by the EC directive and that the Select Committee must therefore receive an environmental statement from the promoter. As I said, we considered this matter carefully and at length.
The noble Lord referred to Article 1.5 of the EC directive. That is a matter which we considered. We found that it has always been understood by the Government, and hence by Parliament, that Article 1.5 grants an exemption from the need for an environmental assessment for any works authorised by a private Bill. Both Houses have acted on that assumption since the directive came into force. That is why promoters are not obliged to prepare statements.
We were shown a letter dated 14th February 1990 from the legal services of the Directorate-General
1460
Environment of the Commission. The effect of that letter was that the EC Commission may now be questioning whether Private Bill projects are exempt. If there is any doubt about it, it can only be resolved between the Government and the EC because it is the Government alone who are responsible for the United Kingdom's international relations. Certainly it would not be for a Select Committee to reach a conclusion on this. In the same way, with respect, I do not believe that this House should.
The House will recall that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure recommended that each House should incorporate environmental impact assessment into its Private Bill procedure. Speaking personally, I hope that this recommendation will be implemented as soon as possible. But at present promoters are under no obligation to prepare assessment statements and our committee was right to reject the adjournment sought.
The noble Lord said that we had the power as a committee to order that certain things be done on the environmental side. We were aware of that. In considering the matter we noted, as was said by my noble friend Lord Geddes, that there were no local environmental objections to the works at Immingham. In fact the local authorities supported the works and offered no objections on environmental grounds.
As to the Coalfield Communities Campaign expression of concern at the potential impact of increased transport of coal by road on the communities near power stations and Dr. Witt's amendment to make it obligatory for coal unloaded at the new facility at Immingham to be transported to the generating stations by rail or barge, we found no difficulty in rejecting that amendment. The link between the proposed works and possible damage to distant environment by the possible carriage of goods by road, or possible coal imports, is in our view far too remote. In any event the promoters would not be responsible for the movement of goods once they had left the dock. The committee was assured that highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict such traffic.
Those are the reasons why the committee reached its conclusions. I know the argument that was used by the noble Lord. It is an effective argument but it is misconceived today. Therefore, I suggest to him that he should not press his amendment but should withdraw it at the appropriate time. As for other noble Lords, I hope that they will overwhelmingly support the Third Reading of the Bill.
9.17 p.m.
Earl Grey: My Lords, as one of the members of the Select Committee I should like to say a few words about the special report. As noble Lords are aware, the single issue concerned was related to the importation of coal and the effects the new harbour facilities would create. I recognise the need to build a larger terminal at Immingham to take ships of up to 200,000 tonnes. Economically it makes sense as it would lead to the reduction of transhipment costs and to the recovery of port trade from Amsterdam, Rotterdam and elsewhere.

1461
With reference to the petitioners' amendment stressing the case that colleries would close and thousands of jobs would be lost, the promoters of the Bill pointed out that those matters were outside the ambit of Associated British Ports and involved questions of national energy policy. There was no evidence of imminent danger to the coal industry and there were a great many uncertainties about the prospects for the importation of coal and its use in power stations beyond 1993. The international price of coal and exchange rates have to be considered; and those factors are extremely difficult to forecast.
The Select Committee decided that there was a need for the proposed facilities at Immingham. We considered very carefully the proposed amendment but felt that it would be wrong to introduce such a provision, based on uncertainties, into a Private Bill. However, we were very concerned about the potential effect on the coal industry with the possible closure of mines and the possible job losses and the damage that that would cause to the communities. We hope that the Government will give some helpful assurances that, if there is such a danger to the coal industry, consideration will be given in the national interest. Perhaps the Minister will give such an indication this evening.
My noble friend Lord Ezra had hoped to take part in the debate this evening but is unable to do so. He has asked to be associated with the sentiments I have just expressed. Finally, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, to withdraw the amendment. The issue was raised before the Select Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has emphasised. It was raised at almost the last moment of the proceedings. We discussed it fully and agreed that there were no local objections to the works on environmental grounds. There was also doubt as to whether environmental assessment of such works could realistically take into account the potential effect of the carriage of goods by road on local communities.
An environmental assessment could take an unlimited amount of time; indeed, I do not know how long it would take. If we were to call back the original members of the committee, it could take another year or two before they would be able to sit together as the same committee. It could be three or four years before we could hope to be able to come to any form of agreement.
If the amendment is passed, Associated British Ports would have to consider, due to the time involved, whether it should proceed with the Bill. I therefore ask your Lordships to reject the amendment. Having said that, I should like to express my support for the Bill.
9.20 p.m.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, I feel that possibly I owe your Lordships an apology for intervening in this Third Reading debate as I was not present for Second Reading. However, I can assure noble Lords that I have read very carefully most of what was said in another place. I have read and studied all that was said in your Lordships' House on Second Reading and I have read the special report and much of the deliberations thereon. I can assure the House
1462
that I shall strictly avoid making a Second Reading speech tonight. That has been known to happen.
Perhaps I may be allowed to look back 30 years to the time when I had the privilege of presiding over a government committee which was set up to study the major ports of Great Britain. In 1962 we handed to the Government our very lengthy report. In passing, perhaps I may say that I was flattered to see that this report was referred to on more than one occasion during the deliberations of the Select Committee.
In that report there is one critical sentence. It is critical of the port industry as it then was. We had that sentence printed in italics. The reason it was put in italics was that we wanted to emphasise the lesson that it contained. I think that it has a bearing on today's debate. It read:
"No single additional deep water berth for general cargo has been started since the 1930s—apart from those nearing completion"—
as they then were—
"at Teesport".
That was the Lackenby development.
The comments we wrote in 1962 were of course related to a situation with entirely different details from those which are applicable today. However, that fact does not matter. The overriding lesson contained in that sentence is an enduring lesson and one which is to be learnt and adhered to. Reading the special report of the Select Committee, it seems to me that Associated British Ports has been very alive to that lesson.
The lesson as I see it is this. We are an island economy. We live by means of imports and exports; indeed, they are our very life blood. The port industry must be kept not only abreast but also ahead of changing and likely changing conditions. It must be ready to meet the demands, whatever they are, from home for exports and from overseas for imports. If we do not learn that lesson of being ready to meet that trade, in my view we do not meet it at our peril.
Many possible changes have already been mentioned this evening. However, I should like to mention now the changes that I have in mind. They are mostly technological: the design, size and performance of ships; the size of ports needed to handle those ships; the type of handling methods in the ports; and the pattern of world trade. But what is becoming a particular issue is the growth of our trade with the Community and the competition arising from it, especially from those great ports mentioned by my noble friend Lord Thomas—Rotterdam and Amsterdam—with all the high costs of transhipment that they involve.
The Select Committee, as I read its report, is alert to those facts. It seems to recognise that Associated British Ports is trying to learn the lesson and not allow matters to go by default, as they went by default as we thought 30 years ago. It sees the importance of continuing to be able to meet today's demands and likely future demands.
As I see it, if a port serves one industry only, that port can be developed to suit that industry, but in the case of Immingham—I am confining my remarks

1463
to Immingham—which is a common user port serving several different industries, the collective needs of those industries, rather than any one industry, must be given prior consideration. That point can be borne out by one or two figures that I should like to quote to your Lordships. Today coal imports at Immingham, by tonnage, represents 5 per cent. of total imports. Estimates of what imports might be in 1995 vary between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. by tonnage. If we take imports and exports, those percentages are substantially lower and in no way justify any delay which would be to the disadvantage of other industries. That reinforces my argument that the Bill should be allowed to go ahead as quickly as possible.
At the same time, like the members of the Select Committee of the other place and of this House, one is anxious about the future of the coal trade, especially, as I understand it, the Nottingham coalfield, which is served by Immingham and which has performed laudably in the past year or so. However, I also share the Select Committee's view that this is a matter that should be dealt with by central government, because to quote the words of the report it is something, "affecting complex matters of energy and trade policy".
Like other noble Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister recognises that there are two separate issues: coal, and the import and export of all kinds of products from different industries. I hope therefore that the amendment, about which I have said nothing because I agree with what my noble friend Lord Geddes said about it, will either not be pressed or will not be approved and that the Bill will be able to go forward, despite the long time that it has been with Parliament, so that Associated British Ports can do the important development work and so rid itself of any possible criticism that it is not alive to the importance of our having a forward-looking, effective and efficient port industry.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, who is an authority on shipping, particularly docks. The noble Viscount pointed out the issues with which the report deals firmly; the role and functions of a Select Committee and the responsibilities of the Government. I too was a member of the Select Committee. I am sure that noble Lords agree that one of the most valued functions of this House is the Private Bill Select Committee procedure.
It has been my privilege over a number of years to have been appointed to committees. I have shared with noble Lords from all sides of the House in the work of Private Bill Select Committees. The judicial and court hearing aspects of the Private Bill procedure—to inquire into and to adjudicate upon the different interests presented during the hearings by the promoters of the Bill and by petitioners—are, in my opinion, like a window on the world of work, of gains and losses. It is the real world.
Our deliberations presented a colourful kaleidoscope of the business, commercial and
1464
community life that exists outside Westminster. It is good that Parliament should have this practical input into its proceedings. I say unashamedly that I have been educated—if that is the proper way to put it—and certainly edified on matters of commercial and other interests. There are also the legislative functions of the Private Bill procedure. Members are called upon to exercise every sense of vigilance and to make accessible all available wisdom to safeguard the interests of the public.
I wish to pay tribute to all who took part in the hearings on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. During the 10 days of deliberations, members of the committee were impressed by the skills, the clarity, the forthrightness under examination and the strong commitment to high standards of community values displayed by those who made submissions and gave evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, mentioned the committee. I hope that it will not be seen as "slapping one another's back", as we say in Ireland, if I pay tribute to the noble Lord. The noble Earls, Lord Grey and Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, would join me, I am sure, in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was most thorough, thoughtful and courteous in his position as chairman of the Select Committee. We should be pleased if at any time we were invited to join him again. The committee was expertly and ably served by the Private Bill Office clerk and his staff No impediment was put in our way in obtaining whatever evidence was required in connection with our duties and responsibilities as we saw them.
Noble Lords will have heard this evening of the debate in another place on the Bill. They will have read our special report and noted the decision. At the end of the day, our special report indicates that the committee took the view that the Petitions from the coal industry raised complex matters of energy and trade policy which were matters not for us as members of the committee but for the Government. However, that does not mean that the committee was not gravely concerned by the potential effect on the indigenous coalmining industry of widespread coal imports. It was made clear to us that Parliament through the Select Committee system has a duty with regard to Private Bills not only to adjudicate between the interests of private parties but also to safeguard the interests of the wider community as a whole. That is especially so if coal is to be imported at predatory prices.
Given the strength of opinion expressed in paragraphs 22 and 23 of our report about the role that the Government must play to prevent catastrophic consequences for the mining communities, I feel that the Minister owes the committee and the House a considerable and substantive response this evening. It will not be good enough for the Minister simply to say that the Government remain neutral on the Bill and have nothing to add to what was said at Second Reading.
I say that not to score a party political point but for two reasons: first, because of the weight of the reasoned and impassioned evidence presented to the committee and, secondly, because I believe that a dangerous parliamentary situation could arise if the

1465
Government place an unconstitutional responsibility on a Private Bill procedure which bypasses, either deliberately or accidentally, the proper functions and moral duties of the Government. Those points have already been hinted at in the debate. I agree to a large extent with what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said, but I should have been much happier had he dealt with paragraphs 22 and 23 of the special report which mentions those matters.
We received volumes of detailed evidence from British Coal, Associated British Ports, local government spokesmen, the NUM and the UDM. The evidence submitted included submissions by two right reverend Prelates, who gave telling evidence about the possible impact of massive coal imports on coalfield communities in their dioceses. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield said in his evidence:
"There appears to be no future for our industry, so whatever we do there is no future for our community, so there is no point in us planning for the future. The cumulative effect of that is despondency in all branches of the community. It is very profound and saddening to see".
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell said:
"As the pit is at the centre of the village, its life, its entertainment, its work, when a pit closes it is as though the heart goes out of the community and it has, in fact, been destroyed".
There is no doubt that the mining industry and mining communities fee! let down. That is the issue that confronts us this evening. That is the issue that confronted the committee. I should like to substantiate my point by quoting from the evidence given by miners' representatives to the committee:
"Moreover what is proposed—and when I say that I mean the creation of a situation in which large amounts of foreign coal might very well come into this country—would be fundamentally unfair and unjust … The miners have been repeatedly told that if they adopt their new working practices and co-operate in improving the efficiency of their pits they can look forward to a long, secure future in the coal mining industry … On the one hand, my Lords, the mineworkers have been asked by the community to transform their industry, to cut their costs, to improve their efficiency—they have responded magnificently to the challenge, everyone admits it—and then Associated British Ports comes along and says 'We are going to construct a new facility which will allow substantial imports of foreign coal to be brought into this country right to the heart of the area'. No matter what those mineworkers do to help themselves, there is no way that they can stop the effect of that on their industry. If the Bill is allowed through in those circumstances unamended, it will make all the assurances which have been given to them in the past look very hollow indeed."
Perhaps I may give a further quote which sums up the situation:
"Morale is already low within the industry … morale is desperately low at the present time".
That was on the date of the submissions. I have quoted at length from submissions given over a number of days by the miners' representatives, by the miners themselves, by local representatives of mining areas and by right reverend Prelates.
I should like to indicate some of the reasons why the miners felt so badly let down. One mining representative presented to us a letter which had been sent to him in his official capacity by the Prime Minister. It was dated 15th September 1982. It shows why a feeling of utter despair had arisen, following promises given on behalf of the Government. In the
1466
letter the Prime Minister refers to the honourable Member for Sherwood, Mr. Andy Stewart. The letter states:
"Andy has been to see me today and let me know your views. May I say how greatly I and most other people appreciate what you are doing—you are an example to us all".
That message was sent from the Prime Minister to miners at a critical period of 1982.I understand that there were subsequent discussions which encouraged the miners into thinking that the assurances were genuine and that they would be looked after and given credit for their performance. Their hopes were raised and later dashed.
At the annual conference of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers in 1988, Mr. Cecil Parkinson, then the Secretary of State for Energy, said:
"I think it is entirely appropriate that I should be speaking on this occasion to representatives of the mineworkers, and particularly to those mineworkers to whom this whole country owes so much … the Government's continuing commitment to the industry, and continuing support for it … Our resources are not problems; they are assets from which we can only benefit; and I believe that coal is one of the most important of them. That is a fact which this Government has always recognised … I look forward to working with you and all your colleagues for our common good. That common good, that future objective which we all want, is a strong, viable coal industry. The prospects for achieving that are bright and good. It needs the commitment of all—government, management and men. I pledge the Government's commitment. I believe that together we can build an industry which has a bright future and will be an important contributor to the wealth of our country".
In my view the Government have disappointed the coalminers. They have sadly demoralised the mining community. This evening the Government have an opportunity to remedy that situation. I hope that the noble Viscount who is to reply to the debate will face up to the challenge put to him in this report. It is a challenge to honour promises that have been given and to face up to the dilemma that mining communities themselves have had to face.
I do not intend it in any personal way and mean my words to be taken by the noble Viscount in the sense of his acting on behalf of the Government when I say, "Do not commit a Pontius Pilate act and wash your hands of this particular problem". The onus is on the Government. I should like them to take this matter further, consider the final paragraphs in the report and face up to the responsibilities.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that I am a director of Associated British Ports. On this occasion I need detain the House for only a very short time. After the clear and comprehensive speech of my noble friend Lord Geddes and the equally comprehensive summary of the Select Committee's position by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir, there is indeed very little that remains to be said.
Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House of the reasons why Associated British Ports introduced this measure. It has been said that it was introduced in order to meet the company's statutory obligations. That is true. It is also true that as a business judgment the company clearly believes that it can profitably

1467
operate this port. That is a perfectly respectable objective for any company.
However—my noble friend Lord Rochdale made this point abundantly clear—there is a wider reason for the introduction of this measure; namely, the interests of our customers and the nation. Perhaps the House will have been struck, as I was, by the reminder from my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir that the existing major port at Immingham can only take ships of 30,000 tonnes. In the context of modern trade practice it is almost unbelievable that the major trading port on the east coast of this country is restricted in that way. All those industries in this country which depend on the efficient and competitive handling of cargo, particularly bulk cargo, are handicapped because we have ports that are simply unable to compete with Continental ports. Therefore so many of our industries have to tranship their goods and incur additional costs as a result.
I do not think there can be any doubt about the national importance of having modern ports which are capable of handling the largest ships in the most efficient way possible. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, rightly emphasised the importance of the coal industry. No one will question that, least of all perhaps a former Secretary of State for Wales. But we are dealing with a whole range of important industries. The coal industry is only one important industry among very many. I believe that Associated British Ports has a proper duty to meet the needs of all those industries and to consider them, as my noble friend Lord Rochdale said, collectively and in the widest possible sense.
I refer to the central issue that has dominated the proceedings on the Bill for so long since it was introduced in the autumn of 1987; that is, the issue of coal. I understand the feeling so clearly and notably presented to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in the speech that preceded mine. But, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir said, to accept the proposed amendment would be to introduce a major and unprecedented protectionist measure into a private Bill. It would not only be an unprecedented measure but it would set a most dangerous precedent for the future.
It would be so dangerous that the Board of Associated British Ports took the view that if it were introduced it could not proceed with the Bill, not because there was no need for its other customers at Immingham, nor because it would be impossible to run the Immingham facilities profitably, but because a precedent would have been set that a clause should be introduced into a port measure for the wider control of trade and for exercising responsibilities that clearly should be and can be exercised by government.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me how he knows that it would be unprecedented?
Lord Crickhowell: In using that phrase, with respect, I was simply quoting from my noble friend the chairman of the Select Committee and the
1468
statement included in the report of the Select Committee.
My third point refers to the work of a Select Committee and the value that should be attached to it by this House. As I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the very detailed way in which he examined the environmental issue—indeed as I listened to my noble friend Lord Geddes addressing the same point—I felt that I was listening to to the most compelling case that I have yet heard for having Select Committees examining those issues and reaching decisions about them.
We heard from my noble friend who chaired the Select Committee that it sat for 10 full days and deliberated for two days. My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to the number of pages of evidence devoted to the specific environmental issue. We heard that the chairman of the Select Committee, having heard Dr. Witt's evidence and having addressed the significance of it, reminded the committee and the counsel for Associated British Ports of its significance and had a response. In the relatively brief time available to the House this evening, it is extraordinarily difficult to argue that we are in a better position in this Chamber to weigh up the complex and detailed arguments that were presented than the Select Committee which considered the issue so carefully and decided unanimously that those arguments should be rejected.
I have only one further point to make on the environmental issue. I would not argue that one should stand on the parliamentary proceedings or the technical arguments about whether one is obliged to introduce environmental assessments. For every reason, I believe that environmental assessments for major projects such as power stations and coal mines—indeed for a range of products—are desirable. I welcome the fact that they are being introduced and that the Government are supporting them. However, if we go down the road of valuing and using environmental assessments, we must understand what they are capable of and what we seek to achieve. Otherwise they will be devalued and rendered worthless.
TheGovernment are absolutely right in their guide to draw attention to the fact that they must deal with direct and relatively local effects. Associated British Ports is in no position to control or to make an assessment of traffic movements in and out of power stations and coal-mines 20, 50, 100 or 200 miles away or to make an assessment of the actions taken by any of their customers elsewhere. It is notable that in presenting his closing address to the committee Dr. Witt cited examples of cases where environmental assessments had been taken. In every case he cited coal-mines and power stations. He cited the kind of projects where one can make an assessment of local impact.
The arguments this evening appeared to be about whether the projects should have been sited where they were or whether special controls are needed for movements in and out. The truth is that coal will be moved in and out of power stations and coal-mines for a variety of reasons and it will be moved by

1469
different forms of transport, and those reasons will have nothing to do with the construction of the jetty.
One of the reasons was cited by the noble Lord. Lord Carmichael, when he drew attention to the need to reduce the discharge of sulphur into the atmosphere. That leads to the need for blending and for moving coal from one pit to another in the transport of coal around the country. Perhaps that will be a more significant factor in the years ahead, with all the environmental importance that we are now attaching to the issue, than the construction of the jetty at Immingham. But there is no way that an environmental assessment conducted by Associated British Ports will be able to add anything to the information that we now have about the matter.
The only issue about which we can be certain is that those most closely involved and knowing most about the situation in the locality—that is, the local authorities—are certain that there will be no adverse environmental impact locally. As the committee has reminded us, there are adequate powers to enable the local authorities to control movements of coal by road there and elsewhere in the country. For all those reasons, I ask the House to support the Bill.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I concur with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, as regards the possible setting of a dangerous precedent. I also agree with the wise words of the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, that a port exists to serve all industries. As the Bill has proceeded I have sometimes gained the impression that the coal industry is the only industry that we have. One must admire the tenacity of its supporters and I have every sympathy with their feelings.
However, the time has come to accept the findings of your Lordships' Select Committee and not to resort to more tricks to delay this much delayed Bill even further. The Select Committee's report is excellent and fair. It takes into account the anxieties of the coal industry as set out in paragraphs 22 and 23. I am sure that all noble Lords are looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Most noble Lords will be aware that many of our marine-related industries have been in a sad state of decline for a number of years. I really believe we have reached a point at which we must make a firm stand. I draw great comfort from the recent appointment of Sir Geoffrey Stirling to the presidency of the General Council of British Shipping. I am sure that he will be an admirable promoter of that message.
This Bill has had a very good hearing in both Houses. Now is not the time to start rehearsing the arguments again. Any further delay or, God forbid, at worst the loss of this Bill at this stage would send out a crystal-clear message to our Continental neighbours. That message would bring a wry smile to the faces of the comfortable burghers of Rotterdam and Antwerp. Such a message is the exact opposite of that which we should be sending and which I hope we shall send; namely, that our ports and our other marine industries are back in business with a vengeance, freed from the shackles of the past
1470
and what can be referred to as the bad old days placed firmly behind them.
In that light, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will not press his amendment and that this much delayed Bill will be allowed to proceed into law.
10 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, after the masterly rehearsal of the case for the Bill by my noble friend Lord Geddes and the other speeches made in its support, I shall be extremely brief. I spoke on Second Reading and argued then that it was quite inappropriate that opposition to a Bill of this kind, designed to improve the infrastructure of our ports industry and in particular an important east coast port to which the whole emphasis of our trade has moved over the past 25 years, should be quite openly used as a vehicle for the protection of a particular industry.
Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I admire the tenacity and, indeed, the ingenuity with which spokesmen for the mining industry have hung their case at different stages on the provisions of this Bill. I listened with unalloyed admiration to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, constructed his case for throwing yet another spanner into the passage of the Bill. One must say that the ingenuity itself disclosed the noble Lord's main purpose, which is not to improve the environment of North Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire or whichever areas may be affected by the traffic coming from this port. It is to stop the Bill. That is what parliamentary procedure is for.
I entirely agree that a Bill of this sort can very properly be used as a way of airing a case and bringing to the attention of both Houses the anxieties felt by a particular concern. But that does not mean to say that when the House has listened to all the arguments it should pay too much attention to them in the context of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will go through and that the almost unprecedented delays to which it has been subject are now behind us so that we can go ahead with this very important project.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, was extremely eloquent, having listened for 10 days to the cries of anxiety and distress from the coalfield areas. Who can be in any doubt as to what lies behind that? I shall not weary the House at this hour with a great many figures but I should like to quote one or two. In 1950 the coal industry employed 691,000 people, in 1970 it employed 287,000 people and in 1990 the figure is probably something in the order of 85,000. By any standard, that represents a massive reduction in employment opportunities in the mining industry. However, other industries can point to the same reductions; for example, the shipbuilding and heavy engineering industries and a number of others.
The point about the mining industry—it has been made before, and anyone who has had anything to do with it recognises it and sympathises—is that where it operates it tends to be the only industry, and what do you do with a one-horse town when the

1471
horse has bolted? This is the problem which has coloured the attitudes of the mining communities not only in this country but in other countries as well. The case has been made in the context of this Bill but should not any longer be allowed to hold up this Bill. I agree with those who say that it is the duty of the government of the day to state what their policy is and to indicate what support they have given and are prepared to continue to give to the industry.
The only point I would make here is that we debated the Second Reading of this Bill when the House had just dealt with the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill, which is now the Coal Industry Act. Massive financial support was given in the form of writing off literally billions of accumulated losses of the coal industry so that the balance sheet of British Coal started to be largely free from this enormous overhanging debt. It also substantially increased the limits of grant payments that continue to be made to the coal industry in order to help the rationalisation and the redundancy problem, which no doubt will still be necessary if this industry is going to be able to compete in the 1990s and beyond.
The facts of the case speak for themselves. In the four-and-a-half years after the disastrous miners' strike, which was in some ways a tragedy for the industry, until the end of last year the number of operating collieries had been halved. The interesting feature is that the output of coal has remained almost constant. Why? It is because productivity in the coal industry has risen by over 90 per cent.
I have had some experience in industry and in other organisations. I find it impossible to believe that the morale situation which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, tried to put before the House as affecting the mining industry could conceivably be as black as he painted it if there has been a productivity increase of 90 per cent. That sort of increase is achieved by men and managements who have their tails up, who see the opportunities and who are prepared to work for them in order to safeguard their position. The tragedy is that it did not happen years earlier. Indeed, had we had a 90 per cent. increase in productivity in the mining industry not just in the four years 1985 to 1989 but in the 20 or 30 years before that, we would be talking about a totally different situation.
My mind goes back perhaps even further than that of my noble friend Lord Rochdale. "Give me another 100 million tons of coal, and I will rule Europe". Who said that? It was Ernest Bevin when he was Foreign Secretary in 1945-46. The problem is now being solved and I think the future of the coal industry now that it has been greatly slimmed down and is vastly more efficient, highly mechanised, modern, thrusting and competitive is probably
1472
brighter than it has been at any stage in my lifetime. That is my opinion and that is what I should like to hear my noble friend say from the Front Bench. I hope that he will respond to the Select Committee's report and deal particularly with the problem of imports, because we are a mercantilist community: we live by trade. We depend upon as high a proportion of exports as anywhere else in the world. That means that we always have to open our shores to imports.
With the greatest respect to my other noble friend on the Front Bench who wound up the Committee stage debate, he said this about imports. He said that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, had drawn attention to imports, and added:
"I believe I have said before from this Dispatch Box that many of the imports are special requirements for industry and are not available from the supplies mined by British Coal".
That is perfectly true and no one has denied it. However, he went on to say:
"The Government's policy is not to restrict imports of coal".
I hope my noble friend can say that it is the Government's policy neither to restrict nor to promote imports of coal, because it must be even-handed; there must be balance. That is what the industry, its suppliers and its customers want to hear.
One cannot just say that we are not going to restrict imports, leaving people with the impression that somehow it is the Government's wish to see more imports of coal. With the trade imbalance of the size that we have at present, that cannot be right. I am sure that that is not what my noble friend meant, but the words he used may have given that impression. He went on to say, perfectly correctly:
"Decisions on coal purchases, whether from indigenous or imported sources, must be for the commercial judgment of those concerned on the basis of a willing buyer and a willing seller".— [Official Report. 9/2/90; col. 1062.]
I believe that these are policy statements of the Government which the Select Committee was entirely right to say raised broad national issues of energy policy. We heard earlier this evening that the Government should be making more general statements about foreign and European policy so that we all know where they stand and not be continually playing a game of cards close to the chest, which one does in detailed negotiations not in broad policy. On such matters as energy policy the same remarks apply.
My noble friend on the Front Bench has an opportunity this evening to do just that. He has been encouraged by an admirable Select Committee report and I hope he takes that opportunity. I warmly commend the main thrust of the report, that the Bill should go ahead and that it should go ahead quickly. Facilities should be built at all three ports of Immingham, King's Lynn and Port Talbot and we should set about modernising our port industry.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has made so many misleading statements about the coal industry that I am tempted to scrap my notes and deal with the points he made, but there is not time.
However, I shall deal with one point. The noble Lord spoke about productivity. Yes, productivity in the coal industry has risen considerably, but the simple reason is the investment in new machinery. I do not know how often the noble Lord goes down the pits but when I go down, which is frequently, I see transformation all the time I am there. The point is that production has not gone up. That is the difference. The noble Lord said that there were 660,000 miners 30 years ago and only 85,000 now. His figure is certainly correct but what does he expect those of us who support the mining industry to do? Are we to say "Well, another 5,000 or so will not matter until we get down to 10,000"? Surely he does not expect that to be the case. However, it seems to me that these are matters for another occasion.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, gave to me when he kindly allowed me to intervene. I had asked him what the evidence was for there not being a precedent. I quote from paragraph 12 of page 5 of the report. The noble Lord agreed that the chairman of the committee had said this and that it was contained in the report. I quote:
"Such protection against the import of a single commodity at a single port would be unusual but not unprecedented".
If I read the paragraph correctly that might be part of the evidence of British Coal. If that is the case, surely we can argue that an organisation such as British Coal in turn has researched it and said that it is not unprecedented. I leave that point with your Lordships because the matter has been mentioned several times in the debate and it has to be taken into consideration.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the precedent is that a Private Bill applying to a particular locality is to i be used as a means for controlling national policy on trade, which is clearly the responsibility of national government either through powers that they already have or by the legislative means that are available to them. The precedent that I am opposing is the one which suggests that those kinds of measures should be introduced on the back of a Private Bill in order to construct a specific infrastructure facility.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I understand that, but I am not sure that it entirely deals with the point that I made. However, it was worth having it mentioned as it might be taken into consideration at some other time. The two points that I wish to make are related. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said that had it not been for what he called the coal issue the Bill would have gone through without any problem. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, repeated that.
1474
I am wondering what that is supposed to mean. There is hardly any legislation that goes through either House which does not have some aspect of controversy. That is what Parliament is about. If any individual, organisation, Member of Parliament or Member of this House feels sufficiently strongly about a matter, then it should be stated It has been said that those of us who feel strongly about the coal industry and everything that is meant by coal communities have to say what they think about such matters.
However strong the case that is made from the other side of the House and by the Select Committee, we are entitled to say what we feel. I certainly make no apology for raising again at Third Reading what has been called the coal issue. The increase in the importation of coal which some of us think will take place will have wide-ranging consequences, particularly in the closing of pits, with the loss of thousands of jobs, and in its impact on the environment.
On the latter point I refer to the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend. The impact of the EC directive requiring an environmental assessment perhaps represents—I put it no higher than that—a grey area which the Select Committee could have taken into account in reaching a conclusion on this issue. Your Lordships may feel that, if the Select Committee knew that the application of the EC directive to Private Bills at a future date was the subject of discussion with the Commission, the prudent course, even in the absence of local objections, would have been to call for such an assessment before recommending the Bill to your Lordships' House. That is the major reason for the amendment.
Let us consider the situation if, in future cases, such assessments are required by the EC under this directive. Would your Lordships feel that justice had been done in respect of this particular Bill? It is hardly enough to say that it is exclusively a matter for Her Majesty's Government. There is such a thing as good practice. We have all heard about it in connection with many pieces of legislation. In my view this would have been an entirely appropriate occasion upon which to apply it.
I certainly do not intend to repeat the detailed arguments raised here at Second Reading and during this measure's two-year passage through another place. The difference this evening is that we have before us the special report from the Select Committee on the Bill. The report contains some devastating comments on the measure. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, very properly made several quotations from the report. Some were perhaps slightly selective. I do not complain about that. We all do it at some time. If I make some quotations it may help to restore the balance.
There were 10 petitioners against the Bill; four, not unexpectedly, were from organisations directly connected with the coal industry, but six were from local authorities. Noble Lords will have noticed that

1475
this is a special report from a Select Committee. It is a special report because the works proposed in the Bill,
"included aspects of energy and trade policy which are of national importance"—
the implication—certainly to some of us—being that such matters are wholly inappropriate for a Private Bill. The committee's words could hardly be stronger. The report stated:
"The Committee are greatly concerned at the potential effect on the coal industry and on coalfield communities of substantial imports of cheap foreign coal".
It went on to state:
"The Committee hope that at Third Reading the Government will respond in substance"—
I am sure noble Lords will note the strength of that word—
"to this Special Report and give some indication that if the present risk of danger to the coal industry is likely to become a reality, they will give earnest consideration in the national interest to supporting the industry".
Like other noble Lords, I am looking forward to the Minister's reply.
The Select Committee told us:
"The Promoters declined to argue about the potential effects on the coal industry".
Surprise, surprise! The committee drew attention to an undertaking which the Select Committee in another place sought and obtained from the promoters. It was that the promoters would provide the Department of Energy and the House of Commons Library with statistics specifying the amount of coal imported through Immingham, and certain information about the origin of that coal. I am greatly intrigued by that promise. If the figures show that there has been a substantial increase, which at least might be the case—we think that that will be the case, but at least it might be the case—what then? Will some authority tear down the new facilities at the port? Will the port authorities reimburse British Coal for the damage done to the indigenous coal industry, including the loss of miners' jobs? The fact is that it was a preposterous undertaking, hollow and meaningless and completely irrelevant to the issue.
Apart from the quantity, what would be done about the fact that virtually all the coal presently imported into this country has a much higher sulphur content than our own coal? Is not that in itself, in these days of great and growing environmental concern, something which must be taken into consideration?
I am deeply concerned about the Government's attitude to this Bill. They have said that they are neutral on it. To see how neutral they are, I examined the Division list on Third Reading in another place. It showed that 61 members of the Government voted for it and that that number included no fewer than 18 members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, and, perhaps most ironically of all, 10 Whips. I do not contest their right to vote on a Private Bill but to say that there was no whipping is stretching the meaning of the word. Whipping does not always mean having three lines on a piece of paper. That analysis of the voting demonstrates quite
1476
clearly that the Government strongly supported the passing of the Bill and that neutrality is not, to say the least, quite what the Government had in mind.
I wish to comment on two matters which have been raised frequently in connection with the Bill. We have consistently said that an increase in coal imports will add to the disgraceful balance of payments deficit that the Government have brought about. The response has always been—it has been mentioned on one occasion tonight—that imports are only a small proportion of the nation's coal needs. However, what we never hear about is that for the first time ever the country has a fuel trade deficit. Considering the gift of North Sea oil and gas, and our huge coal reserves, it is almost unbelievable that we should now be in such a position—and here the Government are not doing anything to prevent a measure which will exacerbate the balance of payments deficit.
The second point concerns the contract negotiated between British Coal and the new electricity generators. It is a settlement which is frequently hailed as the saviour of our coal industry. I should remind your Lordships that the contract is an interim one and covers only the next three years. That contract will nicely bridge the gap between now and completion of the works proposed in the Bill. I forecast—and I am quite sure about this—that the contract which follows will without any doubt mark a further reduction in the demand for British coal. So much, therefore, for the value of the highly publicised contract.
I fervently hope that the Government will take the Select Committee's report seriously. Whenever I speak in your Lordships' House on the issue of coal, I refer to the importance of ensuring that the country maintains its security of supply. I believe that that cannot be stressed too strongly or too frequently. Many countries envy the fact that we can guarantee the supply of coal, for its many purposes, for two centuries at least.
All kinds of factors can affect the supply and price of imported coal. I am pleased, therefore, that the last words contained in the Select Committee's report are these:
"The Committee accept that an island nation must have an efficient and competitive port industry and that a manufacturing nation must have cheap sources of electrical power".
We all say "Hallelujah!" to that, so the next sentence is crucial. It reads:
"However, if the unrestricted interaction of these requirements leads to undesirable industrial and social consequences, the Government should act to avert them".
I fear, as do my noble friends, that those consequences will come about. The sponsors of the Bill have made no real attempt to refute them and the Government have been pusillanimous in the extreme. We shall all be the worse off for this measure and I shall certainly not support its passage through the House.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I am the last member of the Select Committee to take part in the debate this evening. I am sure that noble Lords will be glad to know that I shall throw the copy of my speech away

1477
because what I had intended to say has already been said. However, I should like to express my appreciation and admiration to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir for the able manner in which he chaired the committee. It was certainly not an easy task.
The committee was unanimously agreed that there certainly is a demand for another deep-water port facility on the east coast. It is obvious that a facility such as is envisaged in the Bill at Immingham will benefit the whole of industry, not only in the region but ail over the country. It will facilitate both imports and exports and reduce the cost of the transhipment of cargoes.
I hope therefore that the Bill will receive a Third Reading and that it will proceed. I also hope, as other noble Lords have said, that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take due care and attention and give us some assurance regarding the last two points contained in the Select Committee's report regarding the coal issue, which is most important and which worries us all.
10.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I wish to say a brief word about the amendment to the Motion for Third Reading which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. Before I do so, perhaps I may through him express my sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my best wishes for his quick return to the House.
I should like to echo the words of thanks which have already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, and to his fellow members for serving on the Select Committee and for their admirably clear and concise special report. It was, as we have heard, a long committee. It sat for nearly 50 hours spread over 11 days, and the matters raised before it were difficult and inevitably controversial.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would oblige the promoters to prepare and submit to the same Select Committee an environmental assessment statement. I shall first say a quick word about environmental assessment and the private Bill procedure.
I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has already said tonight, that the recent report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure recommended that each House should incorporate environmental impact assessment into its private Bill procedures, and that recommendation is currently under active consideration. However, the joint committee proceeded on the assumption that Article 1.5 of the EC directive on environmental assessment granted an exemption from the requirements of the directive for works projects which were subject to approval by private Bill. That view has been shared by the Government, and it is for that reason that the two Houses have not hitherto incorporated environmental assessment into their procedures.
I understand that there may be some doubt about that exemption, and that the assumption that I have mentioned is not necessarily shared by the European
1478
Commission. However, that is not in the first instance a matter for Parliament and can be solved only between the Government and the Commission because it is the Government who are responsible for the United Kingdom's international relations. In those circumstances, there is not, in my view, any overriding obligation upon the House to require the submission of an environmental assessment statement. Certainly the Bill has complied with all the relevant private business Standing Orders of the House.
The second point that I should like to make concerns the role of Select Committees on private Bills. I stress that the whole system of private Bills' proceedings works on the basis that when a Bill is opposed, that Bill is considered by a Select Committee made up of representatives from all parts of the House. Such committees receive submissions and hear evidence from the opposing parties in coming to decisions on the matters before them.
In the present case, the committee reported unanimously in favour of the Bill, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has told us, specifically rejected a proposal that it should adjourn to await an environmental assessment to be prepared by the promoters. To assist the House, the committee also made a special report setting out the reasons for its decisions. I hope that in those circumstances your Lordships will think seriously before agreeing to an amendment which would, in effect, overturn one of the decisions unanimously reached by your Select Committee.
10.34 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I too should like to express my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for a speedy recovery, and at the same time congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for stepping into his shoes at relatively short notice. The Government have considered the content of this Private Bill and have no objections to the proposals contained in it.
Let me now refer to the special report of the Select Committee prepared under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir. I am sure that all noble Lords who have read that report will find it an informative and valuable document. The Government note that the committee took the view that the promoters had duly established a need for their proposed facilities at Immingham and elsewhere, and the committee further observed that were it not for the coal issue the Bill would have been unopposed in this House.
As stated in the report, the Bill would provide at a most suitable location on the east coast a much needed common user dry bulk cargo terminal capable of taking large ships of up to 200,000 tonnes. Considerable support had been expressed for such a facility by customers and other commercial interests, as the report recalls. It would benefit not only Immingham and Humberside but the nation as well, because in the longer term it should lead to the recovery of port trade from Amsterdam, Rotterdam and elsewhere and to the reduction of transhipment costs.

1479
It is government policy to encourage competition and private initiative. If Associated British Ports thinks that it can make a commercial success of the proposed facilities, there is no government objection to its seeking to do so provided, like any other Private Bill promoter, it is able to persuade Parliament that the powers sought are justified.
The Select Committee is of the opinion that the arguments of the petitioners against the Bill raise complex matters of energy and trade policy for which ultimately the Government must take responsibility. As regards energy policy, the Government's objective is that the United Kingdom should have adequate, secure and environmentally acceptable supplies of energy in the forms that people want and at the lowest practicable long-term costs. The Government aim to achieve this objective by applying their overall macroeconomic policies to the energy sector, making as much of energy supply as is practicable subject to the action of market forces and keeping state intervention to the minimum level needed. They believe that only in this way can they ensure the maximum freedom and flexibility consistent with strategic objectives for safety, security of supply, the prevention of waste and the protection of the environment.
On a more general point, the Government are in favour of free trade and open markets. The case for any exception would need to be looked at very carefully in the context of our international obligations and implications for the United Kingdom economy as a whole.
The Select Committee has expressed concern at the potential effect on the coal industry of substantial imports of cheap foreign coal. In responding to this concern, which was also raised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, I must emphasise that it has never been the Government's policy either to restrict or to promote the import of coal. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend. Decisions on coal purchases, whether from indigenous or imported sources, must be for the commercial judgment of those concerned, on the basis of willing buyer and willing seller. It would be quite wrong to compel coal users to purchase supplies from British Coal by denying them the right to buy from the supplier of their choice. But neither would we discourage coal users from buying as much coal as they wish from British Coal, which is making strong and successful efforts to reduce costs and increase productivity in order to compete with imports.
The Government have made it clear that the privatised electricity industry will be free to choose its suppliers, including its coal suppliers. But the Government have also expected British Coal to win the bulk of the business of the electricity generators on the basis of its impressively improved performance—productivity has increased by more than 75 per cent. over the past five years—together with the security of supply that it can offer in the face of volatile world markets, fluctuating exchange rates and uncertainties regarding security of supply from overseas sources. The current three-year contracts agreed between British Coal and the two main electricity generators provide British Coal with
1480
a large market opportunity, a guaranteed income stream over the next three years, and time to adjust to the needs of a competitive electricity market.
Coal is one of Britain's major natural assets and the Government have given unswerving support to the coal industry in its efforts to improve productivity and reduce costs. Since 1979, this Government have financed capital investment in the industry of over £7 billion and have provided £10 billion of grant support to assist in restructuring, with a further £6 billion in the pipeline to allow the financial reconstruction of the British Coal Corporation. That level of support has made possible the rapid introduction of a new generation of mining equipment—to which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, referred—in up-to-date pits and has contributed enormously to the huge advances in productivity and safety which have been achieved.
The Government believe that measures such as tariff barriers of infrastructure impediments are not the way to secure the British coal industry's future. Rather, the future of the industry must depend on its being able to compete in world markets on the basis of full utilisation of modern technology, together with the security of supply provided by indigenous coal priced in pounds sterling. If recent progress in productivity and cost reduction can be maintained, the Government see no reason to believe that the industry as a whole cannot continue to supply the main bulk of its customers' requirements on a fully commercial basis.
Turning to the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I would refer, as other noble Lords have before me, to the conclusions of the Select Committee which turned down the request of a petitioner for an environmental assessment statement to be prepared. I remind the House that there is no legal requirement at present upon the promoters of this Bill, or for that matter any other Private Bill, to carry out an environmental assessment or to produce an environmental statement along the lines described in the EC Directive No. 85/337. The directive, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gwydir said, does not apply to projects,
"the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation".
That covers projects approved by a Private Bill. However, the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedures, as my noble friend Lord Aberdare said, has recommended that there should be a requirement for promoters to produce either an environmental statement or a certificate from the appropriate Secretary of State saying that an assessment is not necessary as the project does not fall within the scope of the directive. The Government are considering the Committee's report but have already announced that they accept that particular recommendation. Implementation would require, among other things, changes to Standing Orders in both Houses. However, as I have already said, those changes have not yet been made and therefore the promoters of the Bill neither were nor are under any obligation to carry out any environmental assessment or produce any environmental statement.

1481
I hope that your Lordships will follow the normal convention on these matters, accept the conclusions of your Select Committee and accordingly allow the Bill to pass.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I find myself in a slightly unusual position summing up the Third Reading of a Bill but not being the last noble Lord on his feet, given that, technically, we are discussing the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, rather than the Third Reading itself. With that minor reservation I shall do the best I can.
First, I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the fact that in my anxiety not to spend an even greater length of time on my opening remarks I failed to wish his noble friend Lord Underbill the fastest of recoveries from illness. We miss him.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not comment on every speech that has been made. The hour is rather later than I had anticipated and there are still two further items of business tonight. I should not be thanked if I went through the speeches blow by blow. However, I should particularly like to thank my noble friend Lord Rochdale and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for their interventions, based on enormous depth of knowledge of the port industry in general rather than the particular point of the proposed new berth at Immingham. I was about to say that their comments brought us down to earth; perhaps I should have said the shoreline. Their contributions brought the whole issue back into perspective.
Two noble Lords opposite made comments which I should like to address. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about the expected date of completion of the new berth at Immingham. His noble friend Lord Dormand anticipated me. To the best of my knowledge it will be towards the end of 1993, coming into full phase in 1994-95.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made two remarks on which I should like to comment, one of which I shall come to later. He made the amazing comment that the fact that there were no objections to the Bill on environmental grounds was immaterial. If I heard correctly, I find that the strangest of strange remarks. Not only were there no objections, but there were positive comments on that issue. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to follow me will comment in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, made two comments in a most interesting speech which I should like to pick up. The first concerned his quotation from paragraph 12 of the Select Committee report which states:
"Such protection against the import of a single commodity at a single port would be unusual but not unprecedented".
Paragraph 12 falls under the general title,
"The Interest of the Coal Industry",
which covers four paragraphs. In paragraph 12, the report refers to "British Coal's contract" and goes on to say:
"Moreover they stressed that other European countries afforded far greater protection [to their coal industries]".
1482
I can only construe that as being the view of British Coal rather than of anyone else.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I did say that, but my point was that, given that we are dealing with a large organisation like British Coal with all its staff, researchers and experts, it is at least one view.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I shall read Hansard with great interest. I am sure that the noble Lord is right. I have never heard him say anything in this House which was not right.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Geddes: My Lords, whether I agree with what the noble Lord said is another matter. I am concerned with the accuracy.
The other point raised by the noble Lord concerned statistics on coal imports. Perhaps I may remind him of paragraph 25 of the Select Committee report from another place. I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting it all, but it starts:
"First, the Committee sought, and has received, a binding undertaking from the promoters".
As I understood it, it was the Committee which asked for it and the promoters who agreed to supply it, not the other way round.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is misconceived and inappropriate. As the Select Committee correctly pointed out in paragraph 19 of its special report and as many noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Davidson, have said, Parliament has not yet incorporated a system of environmental assessment into private business standing orders. Parliament may do so in due course, but, as the Committee itself concluded, the promoters of private Bills are currently under no obligation to incorporate an environmental assessment under current standing orders.
To suggest now that the promoters of a Bill should anticipate or should have anticipated not only what the House itself might decide to do about environmental assessment but also how the Government might apply the EC directive is quite impractical and unjust. The promoters are mindful of the environmental impact of the proposed jetty at Immingham on the coastline itself at Immingham and on the immediate hinterland. The local authorities which cover Immingham—namely, the Cleethorpes Borough Council and the Glanford Borough Council—have expressed no anxiety whatsoever about the environmental impact of the new jetty. They both support the project.
To suggest that the promoters should carry out an environmental assessment many miles inland from Immingham, in areas of the country in which ABP has no business activity, is both impractical and unreasonable. ABP is in no position to say whether coal or any other commodity which may be imported through Immingham might be moved by road through the streets of a particular village in Yorkshire or Nottinghamshire. ABP will not itself be involved in buying, selling, distributing or arranging the transport for such commodities, be it coal or any

1483
other commodity. Its business is to build the port that the nation needs and to satisfy the local authorities which look after the port areas that the ports are environmentally acceptable. This it has manifestly done.
I again remind the House of another important point made by the Select Committee which considered this Bill in great detail. In paragraph 20 of its report it is stated:
"They agree with the Promoters that local highway authorities already possess adequate powers to restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles by road".
I should like to pick up another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. If I heard him correctly, he made the comment that it was at the very last minute that the promoters of the Bill brought forward as a defence—perhaps he will forgive me if I do not use the correct word but I am not sure whether he used that term—that the local highway authorities had that right. As I pointed out in my opening remarks—and I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Grey, who also made the comment—it was only at the very last minute that the environmental assessment issue came up at all. So it is hardly surprising that the comment regarding the rights of the local highway authorities was also at the last minute. It could hardly have been earlier.
This is not a matter which was not put before the committee or not considered carefully by the committee. Indeed, the opposite is the case and the committee came to the firm and unanimous conclusion that the Bill should be allowed to proceed and that the request for an environmental assessment should not be accepted.
There was a huge weight of evidence put before the Select Committee. With the exception of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, who with the greatest respect I think I could call neutral, and the two speeches from the Opposition, all the speeches and in particular those from members of the Select Committee rejected the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and supported the Bill.
I trust that in the circumstances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. But if he does not do so, I urge the House to reject it handsomely. This Bill is good for the ports industry, good for the people who live and work around the ports and, above all, good for the nation. I commend it to the House.
10.52 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting and long debate. Inevitably there was a little repetitiveness. I make no excuse for having raised this matter on behalf of myself and particularly my noble friend Lord Underbill. On his behalf I should like to thank all noble Lords who have expressed their good wishes for his speedy recovery. I shall certainly convey their kind words to him.
I said that I make no excuse for having raised this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord. I remember an occasion in another place when I was at the other end of a long debate such as this one. In fact, it was
1484
rather longer than this debate. Some of those who have been in the other place may remember the great tenacity with which the present Father of the House could take up some points. I listened for four and a half hours while he discussed whether or not there should be a quarter-mile spur of railway into Canvey Island. But he was making a very important point. He took rather a long time to do it but the time was part of the point that he was making. That is why I make no excuse for raising this matter tonight.
I should like to thank everyone who spoke on this Bill. There is no doubt that Immingham in particular is a deep water port that has been built for coal. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who said that he was a member of Associated British Ports, will know exactly the composition and balance of coal and other materials which come in there.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am sorry that I am forced to rise because of the comment by the noble Lord, who suggests that this project is being built for coal. I made it perfectly clear that the company is building it for a wide range of industrial and commercial uses. I cannot allow that statement to stand without challenge.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I referred to the facilities for 200,000-tonne berths. I cannot foresee such berths being built other than for coal. I do not refer to the other facilities. I believe that three berths will be built. It is because of the struggles that the mining industry has had that there has been this great disturbance. It is doing well. We believe that that success could be taken away because of a particularly advantageous balance of currency between a foreign country and ourselves. Over a period of five years the mining industry could be even more disadvantaged. That is why we have raised the issue.
Many points have been made. On a small point—it may indicate the feeling of disquiet that some of us have had—I thought that I had explained that the local authority control of heavy goods vehicles is very limited. It cannot stop heavy goods vehicles; it can only reroute them, and it has to reroute all heavy goods vehicles in an area. It is quite an important point that has been overlooked by those supporting the Bill.
I shall read the statement of the Minister with great care. I do not believe that he satisfied his noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I thought I had a slight feeling from him.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I must challenge the noble Lord. My noble friend's statement was absolutely up to the expectations that I had. I was delighted to hear what he said. I hope that it will receive wide publicity not only in the country but in particular in the coalfields.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I shall read the statement with great care. I did not have that impression. I have always had great respect for the noble Lord since we met in committee in about 1966. I thought that I had in part an ally regarding

1485
doubts over what his noble friend Lord Davidson said. However, I shall read what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Rights of Way Bill
10.58 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill was introduced in another place by my successor in my former constituency. I am grateful for the opportunity of supporting him.
The Bill brings forward a piece of much needed legislation to deal with the long-standing problems of the rights of way over cultivated land. A large part of that problem is that the present law, which is set out in Sections 134 and 135 of the Highways Act 1980 as amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
The existing law is concerned only with ploughing. It therefore does not cover other legitimate needs of the farmer who has to disturb a path or a bridleway for some other reason. Nor does it address the problem most likely to be encountered by path users of paths that are affected by growing crops. It is because of that confusion that farmers have not always been as diligent as they might otherwise have been in respecting public rights of passage. Therefore walkers and riders have a rich vein of justified complaint. The result, I am sorry to say, has been conflict and unhappiness all round.
In an effort to resolve some of these problems, a voluntay code of practice on Ploughing and Rights of Way was prepared by the Rights of Way Review Committee. The code, which was published jointly by the Countryside Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture in the summer of 1986, was sent to all farm holdings. Sadly, it failed to have the desired effect. Farmers who took the code to heart were unfortunately let down by the larger number who did not. A survey of the conditions of rights of way carried out by the Countryside Commission in 1988 still found ploughing and growing crops to be the most frequent source of complaints and difficulties of those who wanted to use the footpaths and bridleways of this country.
It was against that background and at the invitation of the Minister for Housing, the Environment and Countryside that the Rights of Way Committee reconvened the small working party which drafted the original voluntary code. It was then asked to identify the changes in legislation that were needed to give statutory backing to the existing code. It is as a result of the work of that working party, and the happy coincidence that my successor in another place was lucky enough to draw a high number in the Private Members' Ballot and his good sense and judgment in taking up the subject, that we have the Bill before us tonight.
At the start the working party identified a number of objectives that the new law must meet. They were straightforward and simple. The law must be as
1486
straightforward as possible so that every farmer can have a clear understanding of what he must or must not do. The law must recognise the legitimate interests of both the farming industry and the users of the paths and bridleways. It must also recognise the whole cycle of cultivation which creates disturbances at various times throughout the year. The Bill will make it perfectly clear that responsibility for complying with the new law rests on the occupier of the land. However, the local authorities will have clear powers to act swiftly if there is default and, where necessary, to carry out the work required and to recover their costs.
The working party has succeeded admirably in ensuring that these principles and the others that it identified are reflected in the Bill. In short, the Bill replaces the farmers' right to plough with a wider right—the right to disturb any cross-field footpath or bridleway, as necessary, when cultivating a crop regardless of the nature of the operation or the type of machinery used. This not only covers ploughing but all other preparation of the seed bed and subsequent operations such as mechanical weeding, hoeing, ridging and the harvesting of root crops. Growing crops are specifically addressed by the sensible and reasonable requirement that all unsurfaced highways be kept clear of all crops other than grass at all times.
Any disturbance to a path that is not directly related to a crop, such as the installation of drains in a field, can also be authorised by the highway authorities. Consent can be given for up to three months to allow the temporary diversion of a path while such a major operation is going ahead.
There is no doubt that the key to encouraging greater compliance with the new laws lies in ensuring that the highway authorities have clear powers in order to act if a farmer or landowner is acting in default of the Bill. In addition the local authorities have power under the Bill to recover any costs they incur in restoring a footpath or bridleway.
The new Schedule 12A that the Bill inserts into the 1980 Act provides the powers that the highway authorities need to act swiftly, with a minimum of formality, to deal with illegal disturbance such as the ploughing of a headland path; to restore or mark the surface of cross-field paths in default of the occupier; or to clear crops which are growing or encroaching on any unsurfaced highway. The schedule also gives extra power needed to cross the occupier's land, to gain access on to the site for machinery or equipment and to recover the costs of doing so.
The schedule sets out minimum and maximum widths for each class of right of way. Thus the farmer will know exactly what is the minimum width to which he must work in restoring paths and keeping them clear of crops if he is to avoid running into trouble with the local authority. The minimum width is also the width that will be taken into account in any prosecution. The maximum width is slightly wider. It provides tolerance for the local authority when acting in default to accommodate different widths of machinery and available equipment and will limit minor arguments about the exact width which has been cleared.

1487
It will be clear from what I have said that the Bill is a comprehensive and carefully balanced package of measures. No one set of interests is favoured. The Bill ensures that the law is changed fairly and effectively to resolve the present difficulties and uncertainties.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Kimball.)
11.6 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for sponsoring this Bill in our House and particularly for the way in which he has introduced it. As he has said, the Bill involved a working party of the rights of way review committee. Taking part in the discussions were the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the British Horse Society and the Ramblers Association together with others. They reached agreement in an astonishingly low total of four meetings. It shows what can be done in a spirit of co-operation, even on such touchy subjects as rights of way.
At this hour I do not propose to cover the Bill in detail although I particularly approve the use of the word "disturbing" in place of "ploughing" to which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred. That clarifies a rather difficult question of definition.
A majority of farmers and land owners tolerate the existence of rights of way through their land. They may not welcome it but they will respect any sensible legislation which protects or provides for such rights. A majority of walkers are prepared also to accept and respect sensible rules about using rights of way. Some may not like restrictions. No doubt some may feel that the right of all mankind to walk freely on the land, as in the ancient Scandinavian every man's right, should apply also here. Nevertheless, they will stick to the rules. That accord breaks down when otherwise peaceful walkers find their recognised route obstructed by impassable objects or obliterated by neglect or crop cultivation. This evening I do not propose to discuss the subject of bulls which is constantly raised in this context. However, I am sure that that is an obstruction encountered far less than some would have us believe.
It is often frustrating for walkers to have to find an alternative route; it is certainly to the detriment of the land holder. Of course, on both sides, there are exceptions to the reasonable norm. Some land holders will deliberately obscure and obstruct rights of way and some walkers will abuse a facility by carelessly leaving open gates and scattering litter. We hope that this sensible Bill will serve to deter both sets of wrongdoers by clarifying many of the points in existing law and by giving legal backing to existing codes. It should be supported by all of us.
There is one point about which I am not quite content. Wherever a prosecution is required, the Bill provides that only the highway authority or the non-metropolitan district, parish or community council can bring proceedings. It could well be that a particular offence seems minor in terms of the
1488
local authority. It could therefore be given a low priority in present straitened circumstances. But there could be great distress being caused to local people. Also in a rural situation a preponderance of land-holding interests on a council could lessen the priority that might be given to such action.
I suggest that we should try to introduce the possibility of some local organisation being able to bring proceedings in default of action by the local authority. I say local organisation because I would not wish to give this power to individuals. That could open the way to abuse by cranks or by purists of one kind or another. But a genuine local organisation that has been upset by the obliteration or the blockage of a footpath should have the right to persuade everyone to take action. I believe that the threat of possibly being able to take action would be enough in itself That said, I welcome the Bill. I thank the noble Lord for introducing it and I hope the Government will give it a fair passage.
11.11 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, have both indicated to me that this Bill is going to be widely supported. It was indeed the Ramblers Association and the British Horse Society which were instrumental in negotiating the Bill's provisions. Both organisations belong to the Outdoor Pursuits Division of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. The CCPR, the umbrella organisation to which most governing bodies of sporting and recreational activities belong, supports the Rights of Way Bill wholeheartedly. It believes that its provisions will greatly benefit riders and walkers by improving access to the countryside. No restrictions beyond those currently set out in the code of practice will be placed upon farmers and in certain ways landowners, and the natural landscape will benefit.
I wonder whether I may draw your Lordships' attention to just three aspects of the Bill. First, as regards the scope and nature of the problem, the Bill will affect the lives and recreation of an enormous number of people. The Countryside Commission believes that the figures to which the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred show that between 10 million and 20 million people walk or ride in the course of every year. Its survey of the condition of rights of way published last year shows that on average a walker or rider has only a 70 per cent. chance of travelling two miles without encountering difficulties. This figure deteriorates to a 90 per cent. chance in the arable country of East Anglia.
Ploughing was singled out as the most important obstacle to be encountered along the 140,000 miles of public footpaths and bridleways in England and Wales, and ploughing is the second aspect of the Bill on which I want to speak. Ploughed routes pose special problems for riders and their horses or ponies. A horse's hoof makes a far deeper impact upon ground than a human foot, turning soft ground into mud; and a clay soil may take years to settle. A horse or pony can sink up to its hocks in clay and as a result it can lose a shoe and suffer undue strain to tendons or ligaments. Sharp flints can also surface

1489
as a result of ploughing and may injure soft parts of the hoof or cause blood poisoning from flint cuts.
Since a path must be restored so as to render it reasonably convenient, it should be recognised by landowners that some ground, especially heavy clay soil or earth containing large flints, cannot be suitably restored except by expenditure which would obviously outweigh the advantage of the original disturbance. The Countryside Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture and the local authorities who will have to enforce the Bill's measures might like to advise landowners of this difficulty through guidance notes.
The third aspect of the Bill that I wish to mention is the obvious benefit to the farmers themselves and to the countryside. The CCPR suggests that the Bill will benefit not only the public but also farmers, since properly defined paths will ensure that riders and walkers do not stray into fields and trample crops. This is particularly important in areas where the grubbing up of hedges has removed natural markers and a sharp turn in a path becomes almost impossible to spot. Disruption caused by all forms of ploughing limits walkers to the obvious routes. It intensifies their use and contributes to erosion and disturbance, especially of moors and hill country.
In conclusion, this Bill must be viewed as an accepted compromise. It cannot have been easy for the working party which framed the Bill. There are bound to be conflicts of interests when involving the DoE, MAFF, NFU, CLA, the Association of County Councils, the Rights of Way Review Committee and the Countryside Commission. All are to be congratulated on their co-operative approach.
It should be stressed that any farmer who has observed the code of practice on the ploughing of fields crossed by rights of way has nothing to fear from the effects of this Bill. Since the contents of the Bill are now settled and agreed by all parties, it is fervently wished that the Bill will have a speedy passage through this House and will reach the statute book in time for the commencement of the next ploughing season in August. Indeed, with the prospect of another dry summer it would be of great benefit if the Bill received Royal Assent by July.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when I looked at this Bill I rapidly came to the conclusion that it was one of the best and least contentious Bills that I have seen since joining your Lordships' House. The Bill sets up workable rules by which farmers will know exactly what they have to do with footpaths and allows walkers to use those footpaths. It also allows agricultural work to carry on. It specifies for farmers exactly how long they can do such work and what they have to do after the work which has disturbed a footpath is completed.
On those grounds alone there is no way in which anyone can realistically criticise the Bill, though when something is universally praised one always worries that there may be something the matter with it, in the same way that when something is universally condemned one knows that there has to be good in it. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has
1490
possibly identified one area of weakness, in that there should be some machinery by which certain interest groups other than those mentioned in the Bill are at least consulted about prosecution. That point certainly deserves careful consideration and I would not be at all surprised if it was considered beneficial to include it in the Bill.
Those who live in the country and who are not landowners are likely to benefit greatly from the Bill. I say that for the simple reason that if one lives, for example, in East Anglia, as I have for a large part of my life, one finds that large areas of the countryside are heavily cultivated and, for historical reasons, there is very little heathland left. Such people have less access to areas to exercise their dogs or themselves than people who live in cities and have access to parks. Thus, I suggest that anything that keeps open the rights of way that exist, and keeps them open at a reasonably usable level, is wholly to be welcomed. Having said that, I wish the Bill well.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I too would like to support the Bill. The point made by a number of noble Lords is that it represents a remarkable compromise and a collaborative effort by diverse and disparate interests which, over many years, have been engaged in conflict, sometimes almost ending up in fisticuffs, as disputes over rights of way have developed.
The Bill is a great tribute to the rights of way review committee which set up the working party. It produced a code which was observed by some but not by all. That body has gone on to produce clauses for a Bill that was introduced by Mr. Edward Leigh in another place. The review committee is chaired by my own Member of Parliament, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, who spoke at Second Reading in another place. He and his predecessor, Mr. Michael Spicer, M.P., deserve the highest credit for their chairmanship of this remarkable group of people who worked together to produce the Bill.
There are one or two points that I wish to make which seem to me important. The Bill is not a comprehensive measure. It deals with two specific problems; namely, ploughing and crops. It introduces definitions and clarifies the duty of landowners and occupiers both as to the time of reinstatement and its dimension. That will be enormously helpful in clarifying the law. But there will be an ultimate sanction.
It must be the hope of everyone that the sanction of prosecution will never have to be used. That can be avoided because the Bill gives clear and specific powers to the relevant local authority, after due procedures, to do the work itself and to charge the landowner for any cost. Faced with the possibility of the local authority first doing the work and then charging the landowner or, alternatively, prosecuting, the vast majority of landowners will be sensible and recognise their obligations.
The point that one must make to landowners, partly in their defence, is that rights of way are part of our history and heritage. In many places they go back for centuries. They represent the way in which

1491
country people went to work, church and school. In many cases they still do. They use these paths and bridleways and other rural rights of way to achieve their purposes. Therefore, in that sense, farmers are not being asked to give up anything, but merely to recognise a fact which has existed from time immemorial and which their predecessors in title will have had to take account of as well.
The landowner replies that the situation now is quite different. It is not a question of children going to school but of organised parties of walkers. I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, use the term "walkers". The word "ramblers" for me conjures up the wrong image. I bristle. Rambling rhymes with shambling. There are people whose speech is rambling as no doubt mine is. It is a derogatory term. I know that the Ramblers Association has a long and honoured history as a campaigning organisation for the benefit of walkers. I find it quite difficult to reconcile myself with the name. It is my prejudice and I accept that.
The fact of the matter is that ramblers are quite different people from those who used the rights of way in earlier times. They are people who, perfectly legitimately and properly, come out from the towns, sometimes in quite large groups. They do not have a culture which is embedded in rural wisdom and experience. Sometimes that is what creates difficulties. There are also a great number of new rural dwellers who are themselves emigrants from the towns and cities. That is again an element that has nothing to do with people who earn their living off the land.
Over most of this century and before one has been dealing progressively with a steady increase in the numbers of people, as my noble friend Lord Kimball mentioned, who go walking. That is what has created the difficulty, the problem, and in some cases the conflict and bitterness which is now in this narrow field being resolved.
We have to exercise some self-discipline on the Bill because there will be a temptation to try to go further. We should be most unwise to do that. If we do not carry the Rights of Way Review Committee we shall merely stir up new conflicts. What gets my goat is when walking quietly on a right of way through the moors to have a gang of people come roaring along on motorcycles or in jeeps or buggies. They apparently have a right to do so because from time immemorial someone was entitled to take a donkey cart or bullock cart across the hills on the right of way. I strongly urge the Rights of Way Review Committee to deal with such matters. Of course people wishing to take part in motorised sports must be able to do so, but it cannot be right that quiet rural areas where one goes to study wildlife and to watch the birds can be disrupted in this hideous way by motorcycles and cross country vehicles. However, I shall exercise restraint. I shall not put down an amendment about them. The Bill must get on to the statute book and if we start cluttering it up with other measures we may make it a good deal more difficult.
I warmly welcome the measure. I congratulate all those who have been responsible for its drafting and
1492
production. I warmly commend my noble friend Lord Kimball for sponsoring it in this House, and like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and other noble Lords who have spoken, I hope that it will reach the statute book in July. It is important that we should get this working as soon as possible.
11.27 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, on bringing this Bill before the House. I also congratulate this remarkable working party, which got away with four meetings on what has for years and years been an extremely contentious subject. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said about rights of way. They go right back into history and are of enormous importance. They were of importance in the past. They were used by people to go to church, to go to work and so on. But now, with a vastly larger population, which is a town population on the whole, wishing to go into the country and learn something about it, in a strange way this amazing network is more important than ever before.
I speak as a farmer who operates over a large area with an enormous number of rights of way of all sizes, which I may say do not quite coincide with what I see in the Bill. I believe that the farmer's greatest protection is the rights of way on his farm. They give him the opportunity to approach in a polite way people whom he may feel are trespassing and point out to them that they can get a rights of way map from the local council. He can point out where the rights of way are and where they go to. I must have done it a hundred times. On the whole, the recipients of my advice have been grateful and only on a few occasions have they not been quite so grateful as I might have wished. My advice to any farmer is that it would be simpler never to plough up a right of way than to go through the palaver of having to put one back again.
That leads me on to one or two questions which I feel must be asked at some stage. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to answer them. First, an expression is used in relation to what a farmer must do within the periods—14 days, 24 hours and an extension of, perhaps, 28 days—laid down in the 1980 Act. He must "make good" the right of way. It is a very imprecise expression in my view. It would be interesting to farmers, and probably interesting too to the highway authority, which also has to "make good" if someone falls down on his duties and is prosecuted, to know exactly what this expression means. Clause l(3)(a) provides that, if the occupier has disturbed the surface he must,
"make good the surface of the path … for the exercise of the right of way".
However, to "make good" can mean anything from smoothing it over with a harrow to putting down grass seed, which, of course, in the winter would not grow in any event. I am sure that this cannot be clarified in the Bill, but it would be useful at least to hear my noble friend's opinion on the matter.

1493
The second matter which troubles me to a certain extent is that at the very beginning of the Bill it states that you are not allowed unlawfully to disturb. I am not sure what that means. As well as ploughing and disturbing, and all the other words which the noble Baroness mentioned, farmers quite naturally use the rights of way for their own traffic. For example, they run tractors and other machinery up and down them. Tractors make ruts and create mud, and so on. Moreover, in the South, where the soil is free-draining, we feed our cattle for perhaps 150 days in the year. Some people may say that we have disturbed our rights of way. Our normal practice is to put them right in the spring when the grass seeds will grow.
I should like to receive some indication as to whether this normal farm traffic travelling up the rights of way is considered improper; or, alternatively, whether it is all right to use them in this way. By the same token, one wonders about these four-wheel drive trucks and the motorcycles which roar up and down before you can see where they have come from or where they are going. I should like to know who would be held culpable for that situation at the end of the day.
There is also one small technicality which features later in the Bill which I think should be considered and which might even become the subject of a small amendment. It concerns the crops growing on to or leaning over the right of way. I think that the Bill refers to crops other than grass and then continues to define grass in a particular way as being a crop used for silage and so on. We should at least be aware of the fact that all the cereal crops are grasses. I do not feel that these have been left out intentionally. Although it is arguable that they are not often used for silage, oats in certain parts of the world and in certain circumstances can be used for that purpose. It would be a great pity if these situations had to be resolved by way of case law rather than being put right in the first instance by this House.
My final query—and I apologise for being so awkward at this time of night—concerns the width of the right of way. I have a list of our statutory rights of way at home. They come from the "enclosure awards", as we call them. The biggest one is a 40-foot carriageway which goes down through a bridleway to a footpath. On the whole, they are all bigger than the sizes stipulated in the schedule. Does this mean that people can now shrink their rights of way? That would seem to be quite unreasonable. Alternatively, does it mean that, if they wish, they can let a proportion of them become overgrown or that they can plant a row of trees on either side? Further, does this obligation to keep the area clear have an effect on the actual size of the rights of way as they exist? Of course I appreciate that there are many different sizes all over the country and that some have no defined width.
Having said that, having been awkward and having spoken for too long at this time of night, I must emphasise that I wish the Bill well. In my view it is a very important measure and I hope that it leads to a great rapport between the townsmen and the countrymen.
11.35 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I shall not keep the House long. I should first declare an interest as a farmer and walker. I believe that I see both sides of the problem. I support the Bill in principle. It will be of great benefit to farmers and walkers. If one comes to an unmarked area or path that one does not know, one ends up going in the wrong direction.
There are one or two points which need looking at and to which I should like some answers. A council may provide for a temporary diversion. Many councils, especially urban councils, may merely decide that they will not do so. There should be an element of "shall" or "without reasonable cause" or something similar. Merely to leave the provision as "may" could lead to some councils saying no. In many cases that would not be right.
My noble friend mentioned the making good of surfaces. The question there is whether they should be made good to the original condition or a better condition. That is a point which could lead to confusion.
Width is of particular interest. First, one does not walk over one metre of path. Does one metre of path mean that the whole metre should be level, because that is absurd? All walkers know that most paths are about a foot wide. The Lyke Wake walk is much wider, but that is a different affair. Most paths have a piece about a foot wide where everyone walks. One must accept that. The farmer will have to flatten a yard of path which will not be used. He may then grow a crop. It could well be rape, which grows about five feet high. Unless the farmer spends all his time going up and down his paths, that rape will fall over.
Does the legal metre which is necessary mean from the tip of the rape onto the footpath? If it does, the footpath must be three metres wide to allow for the rape. If it is not that wide and the rape results in the path being one foot wide only, the farmer is liable to a level 3 fine. That matter could well be the subject of prosecutions by over-zealous officials. The path should be one foot wide, because there is a difference between the path and the gap. That is a point which should be considered.
11.37 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I say from the Labour Front Bench that we give the Bill a warm welcome. We wish it well. This is the third day this week that I have been in the House at this time of night. I have listened to about 140 speeches: 60-odd on Monday; 40-odd yesterday; and 40-odd today. On a number of occasions I heard Members say that everything that they wanted to say had already been said, but that there were one or two more things that they wished to say. They then proceeded to speak.
By the time the clock shows the figure two I shall have sat down, because I understand that it is the unanimous view of the House and another place that the Bill is good. Reference has been made to a number of points that need to be clarified. My noble friend Lady Nicol reminded us that the Bill is the product of Mr. Haselhurst's committee and that it has the full support of the NFU, the CLA, the Ramblers Association and the British Horse Society.

1495
When I read Hansard of the other place I saw that more than 20 associations were involved in it. I do not say that we are wasting our time, but we are taking up time needlessly. It has been a long week. It is late at night. The other place took three and a half hours to arrive at the stage which I hope we shall reach in the next three or four minutes. I wish the Bill well, and I sit down before the clock shows two minutes.
11.39 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I wish to say straightaway that the Government strongly support the provisions of the Bill before us, which were fully and ably explained to the House by my noble friend Lord Kimball in introducing the Bill. It provides a useful opportunity to clarify the law in an area where it has been generally acknowledged that more needs to be done to ensure that the whole of the rights of way network, which now extends to 140,000 miles in England and Wales, is properly protected. The Bill has the support of both users of rights of way and farmers. Such a unique consensus in issues often generating strong emotions and conflicting views is a significant achievement as recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding among others.
The Countryside Commission's recent survey of the condition of rights of way found that ploughing of rights of way and growing crops over them together constitute the most significant factor interfering with public enjoyment of access to the countryside.
There has been genuine concern that the law regarding the restoration of paths after ploughing is frequently disregarded by farmers. However, highway authorities have been reluctant to prosecute, partly because of uncertainty over what is meant by ploughing. Despite the work of the Rights of Way Committee in drawing up a code of practice, compliance has been far from universal. The Government asked the committee to consider how the law might be clarified and better enforced. This Bill is the result of its intensive work.
The NFU and the CLA have given the proposals strong support. Farmers will welcome the clarification of their right to disturb the surface of any cross-field footpath or bridleway in the course of cultivation and their responsibility to restore the path and maintain a clear right of way. Most importantly, the farmer who presently restores paths after ploughing in accordance with current legislation will have nothing to fear. His position and responsibilities will remain unchanged.
We believe that making the obligations of farmers clearer should achieve a substantial reduction in the number of offences. Also, by giving clearer powers to highway authorities, where the law is disregarded, to carry out restoration work and charge the full cost to the farmer, the Bill provides an effective mechanism for highway authorities to take action without resorting to the courts.
We recognise the need for advice to farmers, if and when the Bill reaches the statute book. The Right of Way Committee will be discussing a revised
1496
code of practice for farmers covering detailed advice, including how best to keep a path clear of crops. The Government will issue circular advice to local authorities, drawing attention to their powers.
Present disregard of the law has soured relations between landowners and users, particularly at local level. This Bill is deliberately self-contained, focusing on a single issue where there is agreement. While there are a number of other areas where there is conflict, we believe in the main that these can be settled by the more effective management of rights of way and by involving landowners, users, highway authorities and parish councils in joint discussion and practical action. The Countryside Commission's work in encouraging local liaison groups is particularly important and commendable.
Nor need more effective management require significant extra resources. This Bill, as well as encouraging greater compliance, will make enforcement easier for highway authorities. Their annual expenditure in respect of their statutory responsibilities for rights of way is just £14 million nationwide out of a national aggregate local authority leisure and recreation budget of £1 billion. Only a small re-allocation of expenditure would show significant benefits for countryside recreation. The Government have demonstrated their commitment by increasing funding to the Countryside Commission. Its grant in aid of £25-136 million in 1990-91 will be £2-9 million more than the previous year and we have suggested that part of the increase should be used for access initiatives.
My noble friend Lord Radnor asked me certain questions. I listened carefully, and I shall read tomorrow in Hansard what he said with respect to crops and grass. The Bill contains a straightforward definition which has been agreed by the NFU and it would be difficult to amend it without damaging the consensus support. However, we would of course consider any proposal that is put forward. I should like to write to my noble friend with respect to the questions of definition.
The Bill has proved that consensus is possible and that it is the best means of achieving positive benefits. It is an example we should seek to replicate. I congratulate the Rights of Way Review Committee on its successful efforts and I commend the Bill to the House. Private Members' measures are notoriously fragile barques; I urge the House to give this one a speedy and successful voyage.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, in conclusion perhaps I may follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and thank him for his support and express my thanks for the support which the Bill has received from his side of the House.
Before the Committee stage we shall look at the major points that have been raised in this short debate: the question of prosecution by local organisations and the questions that have been raised from this side of the House by my noble friends on what I call the shrinkage of rights of way. We shall look in detail at the question that has been raised by my noble friend Lord Radnor on the definition of grasses.

1497
I should like to follow the lead given by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. There is no question but that the next issue that we have to look at in the countryside is the invasion of the new, modern Japanese tricycles and four-wheel drive cross-country vehicles. I do not believe that we should include those in the Bill, but my noble friend has put down a very important marker which we should all consider.
I am grateful to noble Lords on both sides of the House for their support. In conclusion I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Salmon Conservation Convention: Infringement
11.46 p.m.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are planning to take against infringement by ships flying flags of convenience of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation's convention on salmon fishing in international waters.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it would be churlish not to acknoweldge that the Government have meant well towards the salmon industry of Scotland. They have, after all, passed the Salmon Act 1986 which was intended to make up for years of neglect by successive governments. They thoughtfully introduced into other legislation measures to relieve from rates those fisheries which tried to put their own houses in order by forming district fishery boards. They also brought into being the advisory committee which was to examine the effects of the Northumberland drift net fishery on Scottish salmon stocks and other matters and report.
Then, unfortunately, logical thought deserted them and, casting aside the obvious conclusions of their own scientific researches, they listened to a Johnny-come-lately on the Scottish salmon industry scene in the person of the Scottish Tourist Board and arbitrarily deprived the legitimate coastal netsmen (who had fished for centuries without damaging stocks) of a sizeable chunk of their livelihood by lengthening the weekly close time. At the same time the English drift net fisheries are allowed to continue to predate upon Scottish salmon stocks, Irish boats brazenly get away with illegally fishing on the high seas off the west coast of Scotland, and now we learn that Danish boats are re-flagging under the Polish and Panamanian flags to fish for salmon on the high seas, thereby endeavouring to circumvent the NASCO agreements.
Information which I have received suggests that a vessel called the "Minna" (an ironic name indeed in that the "Minna" was the name of one of Scotland's honoured fishery protection cruisers) of 84-48 GRT, owned as to 75 per cent. by Pol-fish Ltd. and as to 25 per cent. by Danish interests, flying the Polish flag, although previously it had been Danish registered, and crewed by two Danish citizens and three Polish citizens, entered Torshavn harbour on 18th January last fully equipped for long-line fishing for salmon.
The Faroese police were openly informed that the vessel intended to undertake salmon fishing in international waters and then land the catch in a Polish harbour. There have also been reports of up to seven vessels operating in international waters off the Norwegian coast. On 2nd February the "Minna" returned to Torshavn for repairs. Since her previous visit she had caught 5 tonnes of salmon. The catches were made in seven long-line sets at approximately 65° North and 4° East, north of the Faroes. The number of salmon caught in each set ranged from 181 to 720. If you add together the larger and smaller of those figures, you get the average catch on the Thurso River each year. The average weight of those fish was estimated at between 4 kilos and 4-5 kilos. The skipper intended to return to the same area, catch up to 25 tonnes of salmon and then return to Poland.
In addition to that information, I have also been reliably informed that a Faroese fish exporter has been approached by a foreign company about buying 360 tonnes of salmon from four foreign vessels operating in north-east Atlantic waters. The Faroese nobly refused to grant a licence, but no doubt some other buyer will be found.
That surely indicated the existence of a massive danger to Scottish salmon stocks in comparison with which the legal Scottish coastal netting is about as dangerous as the activities of a small boy with a bent pin.
I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government: what is their policy on this problem? Do they acknowledge the size and extent of it? What measures will they seek to see implemented within the EC to stop that illegal fishery? What do they intend to do to persuade other countries which are not parties to the NASCO convention either to become parties or to control their own fishing fleets in such a way as not to endanger the salmon stocks of the North Atlantic? Finally, while they are trying to find a means to combat those massive dangers, will they rescind the mean-minded and purely cosmetic cuts which they have made in the fishing time of the legal inshore netsmen?
11.53 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are all aware of the great knowledge of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, with regard to the habits, catching, by both net and rod, and processing of salmon. Those of us who were involved in the 1985 Act—it gave me a shock to realise that it was as far back as that—realise that his knowledge of salmon was a great contribution to our proceedings in the House.
In this instance, the noble Viscount has brought to our attention an issue that is vital to Scotland, particularly the north and eastern coasts of Scotland, where it appears, according to the information that I have received from NASCO, that our seedcorn could be destroyed. I understand that illegal fishing appears to be taking place in those waters, so that within a few years serious inroads could be made into the spawning salmon coming up to the famous east coast rivers of Scotland.

1499
I have received the same information as the noble Viscount; namely, that Danish nationals are getting round the convention by flying Polish and Panamanian flags and are catching significant quantities of fish. I understand that the subject will be under discussion at the next council meeting of NASCO in Helsinki in two weeks' time.
It is important to realise that NASCO is a responsible organisation. As the Minister will know, its headquarters are in Edinburgh and its convention was signed by most countries involved—Canada, the USA, the Faroe Islands, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, the European Community and the USSR. It deals with salmon conservation and it has dealt with quotas, so we must take seriously its reports, both verbal and written, and its advice. I understand that there have been diplomatic approaches to Poland and Panama and that Iceland has protested to Poland, but I am not sure whether that was a formal complaint.
I think that Poland should be able to put an end to violations of a convention, given the position just now of Poland. It is important to Poland to be seen as a responsible country, particularly in a period in which it is concerned about help and aid, economic and otherwise, from the West. I understand that similarly America has protested to Panama, which is another of the countries whose ships' flags are being used. Again, in view of Panama's dependency on the United States, I hope that it could also take action to prevent the abuses that appear to be taking place.
But it is also the case that NASCO should protest as a group. Signatories to the convention should be able collectively to highlight violations by other countries even if those countries are not themselves signatories to the convention.
We should be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for raising this matter. It is a matter about which we should be able to do something. I believe—with my limited knowledge of salmon, most of which I have obtained in this House and a great deal of it was from the noble Viscount—that it would be very short-sighted if we were not to take steps as soon as possible to do something about this illegal fishing in the North Atlantic.
11.56 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, first of all I should like to thank the noble Viscount for raising this matter. I shall be quite specific and rather more lengthy in my explanation of the events surrounding these unfortunate episodes. Before I do so, however, I must first thank him for his kind remarks about what the Government have done for Scottish salmon fishing. I know that he will understand that it is a difficult matter trying to deal with enforcement action regarding the Irish and drift netting off the west coast of Scotland.
Co-operation between ourselves and the Irish authorities at practical enforcement level has led to improved coverage around the United Kingdom-Irish median line. That contributed to a
1500
number of Irish vessels being detained and prosecuted by their own authorities in 1989. All I can say to the noble Viscount is that we are trying to tackle this difficult problem of illegal fishing, and the arrangements for this year will be just as tough as they were for the previous two years when we tried to tackle this issue with a great deal of determination.
On the question of the north-east drift net issue, the noble Viscount mentioned that this was a remit of the Salmon Advisory Committee. I have to say to him that it was specifically not a matter for the Salmon Advisory Committee. The question of the north-east drift nets was one thing that was not to be left to that committee but in fact was a matter for ministers. I can only say about the review that the scientific analysis is in the final stages of preparation. Ministers will then have to consider the implications and will report to both Houses as soon as possible thereafter.
Perhaps I should not say it but I know that the noble Viscount has perhaps a bee in his bonnet about the weekend close time. I respect him for that because he argued the case very well when it was discussed in your Lordships' House at the time of the implementation of the order. It is true that the levels of effort and consequent catches of salmon by traditional netting methods have reduced sharply in recent years. That is perfectly true. That is the result of private purchases of netting rights from willing sellers as well as a change in weekend close time. However, I am not persuaded that that change is undesirable in the broader public interest. That is where we differ.
First of all, higher catches are now achieved by angling, which has greater economic multiplier benefits to tourism, as the noble Viscount recognises. Secondly, salmon farming can now provide a vastly greater quantity of salmon for the table and reduced exploitation must improve access to spawning grounds. But the major issue on which I wish to report tonight is the problems in the high seas with regard to some vessels.
It might be helpful if I were to explain to your Lordships that the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) was set up in 1984 and that its objective is to promote the conservation, restoration, enhancement and rational management of north Atlantic salmon stocks. At present, there are nine contracting parties to NASCO covering all the "home water" coastal states for salmon throughout their range in the north Atlantic from the USA to the USSR. The European Community is a contracting party represented by the Commission, and so too, separately, is Denmark in respect of its special relationship with the Faroe Islands and Greenland.
The convention is perfectly clear on the matter of fishing for salmon on the high seas. Under Article 2(1) of the convention, fishing for Atlantic salmon throughout the convention area is prohibited outside the fisheries limits of coastal states. Moreover, within the fisheries limits of the coastal states, the contracting parties have bound themselves to prohibit any fishing for salmon, by any method, outside the 12-mile limit from the baselines from which their territorial seas are measured. There are

1501
some variations to these limits around Greenland and the Faroe Islands so as to enable the prosecution of the traditional salmon fisheries further off their coasts. But the Greenland and Faroes salmon catches are tightly regulated, as the noble Viscount will know, by quotas and set on the basis of impartial scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. The quotas are supported also by a number of effort restrictions agreed in NASCO. The NASCO convention, in effect, applies the principles enshrined in United Nations treaties on the law of the sea which have consistently recognised the special position of salmon; and the rights in that regard of coastal states with home spawning rivers for the fish.
There is also Community legislation which seeks to discourage fishing for salmon in that part of the north Atlantic which lies outwith the control of the Community or its member states. In essence, it is an offence under EC Regulation 3094 of 1986 for vessels to bring into EC waters any salmon or sea trout which has been taken in the non-EEC part of the north Atlantic.
I come now to the activities of certain foreign vessels, which the noble Viscount has raised. Over the past few months or so there have been a number of disturbing reports of large scale and apparently illegal fishing activities in international waters. These waters, broadly speaking, are off the north-west coast of Norway and fishing for salmon has been by vessels registered in countries which are not contracting parties to the NASCO convention.
There has been a complex series of events and sightings of vessels. In September 1989 it was reported that heavy penalties had been imposed by the Danish authorities on the three Danish owners of vessels which had been operating under the Panamanian flag of convenience. The court was reported to have found that in all material respects the vessels were considered to be Danish with no genuine links with Panama. Penalties in excess of £2 million were imposed for their illegal salmon fishing in the north Atlantic.
In December last, officers from my department on a Scottish fisheries protection vessel made a routine inspection off the Shetlands of a long liner vessel, "Brodal", which had a large quantity of salmon on board which the skipper believed to be in the region of 30 tonnes. The skipper was a Danish national and the crew came from Bornholm: but the boat was owned and registered in Panama. The skipper claimed that the fish were caught by long line in international waters over a period from mid-October to early-December. The vessel was on its way to land the fish at Kolberg in Poland. There was no reason to doubt that the salmon had indeed been caught in international waters. Details of the incident were passed both to the Danish embassy in London and to the Commission of the European Communities, the contracting party to NASCO.
In January, the Faroese reported to NASCO the activities of the Polish registered vessel "Minna", as the noble Viscount has so accurately said, which put into Torshaven in the Faroes. The vessel had salmon on board and had been fishing in international
1502
waters well to the north of the Faroes. The skipper claimed he would return eventually to Poland.
I understand that in Denmark the police intercepted on its way to Poland a vessel which was carrying salmon. This boat—inappropriately named "Uncle Sam"—was one of those engaged in salmon fishing in international waters between Iceland and Norway. The boat came from Bornholm in Denmark but was registered in Panama. The Danish authorities are carrying out investigations into the involvement of Danish nationals. The vessel intercepted is the subject of legal proceedings in Denmark. The catch of salmon valued at about £60,000 has been confiscated. I understand that a number of legal issues—in particular the applicability of the Community and NASCO measures forbidding salmon fishing beyond 12 miles to EC nationals operating under flags of convenience and carrying salmon through the fisheries limits of member states—are currently under investigation, including references of points of law by the Danish court to the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg.
We share the concern of the noble Viscount and the noble Lord about these events. So do all the contracting parties of NASCO. We have discussed the issues with the Commission of the European Communities and have communicated all the information we have on the sighting we made. We have raised the matters bilaterally with representatives of the Danish Government and we have stayed in very close touch with the secretariat of NASCO.
It is a clear duty under the NASCO convention for contracting parties to invite the attention of any state not party to the convention to any matter relating to the activities of vessels of another state which appear to affect adversely the aims of the convention or its implementation. The Danish Government, as a contracting party, have been extremely active. The US, currently holding the presidency of NASCO, has taken a positive line in discussions with the Panamanian Government. Action has been taken too with the Polish Government and assurances have been given of their willingness to assist in preventing the undermining of the principles and practice of the NASCO convention by the use of flags of convenience.
We anticipate that the various legal proceedings and diplomatic exchanges will be fully discussed at the annual meeting of NASCO which is due to take place next week in Helsinki. Indeed, as an indication of the seriousness with which these activities are viewed a specific agenda item is to be devoted to the question of this thoroughly undesirable fishing for salmon in international waters in contravention of the international conventions on law of the sea.
I can assure the House that our firm and continued advice to the European Communities—and the line that we shall take on these worrying developments at the NASCO meeting—will be to uphold, by whatever means are practicable and appropriate, the principles of the NASCO convention.
I hope the noble Viscount will accept that these matters are being tackled vigorously by the various

1503
fisheries authorities. The Danish authorities are taking a firm line. Although the most recent prosecution must still be regarded as sub judice, the vessel in question is still impounded until the legal issues are resolved in the European Court of Justice. Our response to this problem has been to alert fishery protection officers on land and at sea to be on the look-out for suspect vessels, several of which have now been identified by name. Whenever possible, such vessels will be boarded and inspected. If evidence of illegal fishing is found the vessel will be detained and the report submitted to the prosecuting authorities.
There is a general determination to tackle this problem quickly before it becomes more serious. Some of the issues, however, are for international authorities or bodies and it may take a little time to ensure that their efforts are effective. Nonetheless, the problem is being tackled and I hope that the various points that I have been able to make will reasure the House, that the Government and all contracting parties involved in these unfortunate affairs are taking the matters extremely seriously.
House adjourned at nine minutes past midnight.

  OIL SPILLAGES: LIABILITY
  OIL SPILLAGES: LIABILITY
  NATIONAL SAVINGS
  NATIONAL SAVINGS